Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Panel On Prosecutorial Immunity: Deconstructing Connick V. Thompson, Dane Ciolino, Gary Clements, Bennett L. Gershman, Adam M. Gershowitz, Kathleen Ridolfi, Samuel R. Wiseman, Stephen Singer

Faculty Publications

In November 2011, the Journal hosted a symposium on prosecutorial immunity at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. The symposium included an in-depth analysis of Connick v. Thompson. As part of the symposium, the Journal organized a Panel, the transcript of which follows. This transcript consists of the speakers' remarks along with audience participation and questions. The Journal has attempted to preserve the character and substance of the discussion. While this is not a traditional article, the Journal felt that it would be fitting to include it in its spring volume.

Can California Save Its Death Sentences? Will Californians Save The Expense?, Scott W. Howe

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Maestas V. State, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 12, Richard A. Andrews

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered consolidated appeals from a first-degree murder conviction and an order denying a motion for new trial in a death penalty case.

Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …

Have We Come Full Circle? Judicial Sentencing Discretion Revived In Booker And Fanfan, Sandra D. Jordan

Pepperdine Law Review

The much anticipated Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker and Fanfan has both invalidated the mandatory nature of the federal Sentencing Guidelines as well as restored judicial discretion for federal judges. With the Booker decision there is a renewed opportunity to correct some of the imbalance that came about as a result of the mandatory guidelines and the sentencing policies of the past twenty years. Booker has implications for all future sentencing as the power between the judiciary and the jury has been realigned and the power of the government has been reduced. Sentencing cannot accomplish legitimate goals …

You Have The Right To Remain Silent. Now Please Repeat Your Confession: Missouri V. Seibert And The Court's Attempt To Put An End To The Question-First Technique, Eric English

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

"What Hath Hiibel Wrought?": The Constitutionality Of Compelled Self-Identification, Robert A. Hull

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Raising The Bar: How Rompilla V. Beard Represents The Court's Increasing Efforts To Impose Stricter Standards For Defense Lawyering In Capital Cases, Whitney Cawley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Pepperdine Law Review

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …

Casting A Wider Net: Another Decade Of Legislative Expansion Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

Pepperdine Law Review

During the last decade, judges, politicians, scholars, and the general public have become troubled about problems with the death penalty in the United States. Also during this time, major studies of the death penalty have recommended a reduction in the number of statutory factors that make one eligible for the death penalty. Despite these concerns, legislatures continue to expand their capital punishment statutes to make more defendants eligible for the death penalty. This Article examines how, during a time of growing concern about innocence and arbitrariness in the death penalty system, a number of legislatures have continued to expand their …

Criminal Justice, Vikram Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cutting The Cord: Ho'oponopono And Hawaiian Restorative Justice In The Criminal Law Context , Andrew J. Hosmanek

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Ho'oponopono is a traditional Hawaiian dispute resolution system that has recently experienced a resurgence of interest. The word ho'oponopono literally means to make right. In this system, both the offender and victim participate in a type of guided mediation along with other stakeholders in the offense. Ho'oponopono is different from typical mediations because after the session is successfully completed, the participants figuratively cut the cord of legal and psychological entanglement which binds them - in other words, the dispute is put to rest forever. When victim and offender come to a true resolution of the problem, and jointly make the …

Shame By Any Other Name: Lessons For Restorative Justice From The Principles, Traditions And Practices Of Alcoholics Anonymous , Victoria Pynchon

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Because the painful experience of shame is believed to deter anti-social and criminal conduct, it has long been a staple of our criminal justice system. Its purpose has been to accomplish moral education about the wrongfulness of the crime and to prevent its occurrence through social and self-disapproval. In criminal ADR or "restorative justice" circles, the beneficial effects of "reintegrative" shame are meant to be accomplished by a "restorative justice conference" or "victim-offender mediation" ("VOMS"). These VOMs bring together victims and their loved ones; offenders and their friends and family; and, caring members of the community for the purpose of …

The Gacaca Experiment: Rwanda's Restorative Dispute Resolution Response To The 1994 Genocide, Jessica Raper

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since its rise to power in July of 1994, the Rwandan government has been committed to prosecuting all those accused of genocide. To prosecute the approximately 130,000 defendants, Rwanda has adopted a program called gacaca, based on Rwanda's traditional customary dispute resolution system. The gacaca law provides a reconciliation component that allows defendants to trade confessions of past genocide crimes for indemnification, as well as a prosecution component that holds the most serious offenders accountable in a Western style prosecution in a formal court of law. One of the main goals of gacaca is to end the so-called "culture …

Cudgel Or Carrot: How Roper V. Simmons Will Affect Plea Bargaining In The Juvenile System , D. Brian Woo

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Roper v. Simmons, that the execution of convicted juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In addressing the issue, the Court determined that a national consensus had developed against the execution of juveniles. Ultimately, a majority of the court decided that a national public consensus had been reached against the execution of juveniles under 18 in age. With Roper, no longer can juveniles of any age be executed. This decision will undoubtedly affect the entire juvenile penal system, from how cases enter the system, to …

Meet Me On Death Row: Post-Sentence Victim-Offender Mediation In Capital Cases, Rachel Alexandra Rossi

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since the 1970's, victim-offender mediation (VOM) has increased in use, most commonly with minor offenses. More recently, VOM has been sparingly applied to serious and violent crimes, including "rape, vehicular homicide, attempted homicide, and murder." Death penalty cases have rarely been the focus of restorative justice or VOM, likely because the victim has died and the offender will soon be executed, and these two parties are traditionally the focus of restorative justice. However, while capital cases involve unique concerns and issues, VOM can still be applied in these cases. The process would only require some modification of the focus and …

Davis And The Good Faith Exception: Pushing Exclusion To Extinction?, Eleanor De Golian

Mercer Law Review

To mitigate the effects of unlawful searches and remain faithful to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which requires lower courts to suppress evidence obtained from illegal searches. The Court, however, has recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule, many of which involve police officers' "good faith" reliance on what they believe to be legal authority to search. In Davis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that, where a police officer relies on binding precedent in performing a search, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule will not be used …

The Jury's Second Coming, Jenny E. Carroll

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the controversial issue of jury nullification by reconceptualizing nullification through the lens of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey. Apprendi’s embrace of the jury’s historical powers — require a rejection of the formalized and static paradigm in favor of a more fluid vision of the law. Despite extensive scholarship surrounding Apprendi, an innovative (though admittedly counter-intuitive) reading of the case line has been overlooked. This reading draws on Apprendi’s embrace of a vision of the law constructed and completed through jury interpretation and verdict. Interpreted in this way, the Apprendi case line …