Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Closing Argument: Connecting The Dots For The Jury, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A common error made by unseasoned attorneys when giving closing argument is retelling the “story” of their case. Storytelling is best used in opening statement, not closing argument. By the time the jurors hear closing argument, they are well acquainted with the story, because they have heard two opening statements and all the evidence.

Closing argument, as the name suggests, is instead the time to argue. This means that in addition to revisiting the theme(s) presented in opening statement, a lawyer may use rhetorical questions, draw conclusions and inferences from the evidence, discuss the credibility of the witness, examine the …

Illinois Courts And The Law Of Miranda Waivers: A Policy Worth Preserving, 30 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 429 (2010), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Flouting Faretta: The Supreme Court’S Failure To Adopt A Coherent Communication Standard Of Competency And The Threat To Self-Representation After Indiana V. Edwards, Conor P. Cleary

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecution Of Genocide V. The Fair Trial Principle: Comments On Brown And Others V. The Government Of Rwanda And The Uk Secretary Of State For The Home Department, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

The article examines the 2009 decision of the United Kingdom High Court of Justice to deny the extradition of four genocide suspects to Rwanda owing to fair trial and partiality concerns with the Rwandan judiciary. It begins by reviewing the relevant UK extradition legislation, the pertinent facts and the rationale for the judgment and proceeds to situate this decision within the broader transnational judicial scepticism about the extradition or transfer of genocide suspects to Rwanda. While this scepticism arises from valid concerns regarding the contemporary state of human rights in Rwanda, it nevertheless contributes to the perpetuation of impunity surrounding …

Pampasan Kepada Mangsa Rogol Di Malaysia Menurut Perspektif Syariah., Rozilawati Mat Yacob

Student Works (2010-2019)

The statistic of rape cases in Malaysia is obviously increasing since the year 2000-2006. This phenomenon is becoming more serious over these years particularly with increasing incidents of rape and murder cases. The rape tragedy definitely left the victim with many effects. It is timely to make a research about rape as a brutal crime and also the compensation for victims in Malaysia. The main objective of this research is to suggest a rape compensation system to be practiced in Malaysia, by looking at the principles laid down by Islam as well as by looking to the practices in Western …

The Police-Prosecutor Relationship And The No-Contact Rule: Conflicting Incentives After Montejo V. Louisiana And Maryland V. Shatzer, Caleb Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In this paper, I examine the consequences of the divergence of ethical and constitutional rules, with particular attention to the institutional dynamics of criminal investigation and specifically the relationship between police and prosecutors. This relationship is of crucial importance because Montejo and Shatzer create a legal regime in which non-lawyer agents and officers may initiate investigative contact with represented defendants in circumstances in which prosecutors are absolutely forbidden to do so. This situation undermines the ability of prosecutors to effectively supervise the investigation of their cases and puts them in an untenable position when advising agents on the law.

Right Problem; Wrong Solution, Joseph L. Hoffmann, Nancy J. King

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Lessons Learned From The Evolution Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

In the discussion that follows, I explore the evolution of the "evolving standards" doctrine to make a point about its legitimacy and Supreme Court decisionmaking under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause more generally. In Part I, I trace the origins of the doctrine to its present state. In Part II, I turn to lessons learned from the evolution of "evolving standards," questioning the textual defense of the doctrine and the constraining power of law itself. I conclude that while the "evolving standards" doctrine is problematic, it is not the crux of the problem. Supreme Court decisionmaking in the death …

Conditional Rules In Criminal Procedure: Alice In Wonderland Meets The Constitution, David J. Rossman

Faculty Scholarship

Without recognizing that it has done so, the Supreme Court has created a category of constitutional rules of criminal procedure that are all in a peculiar format, conditional rules. A conditional rule depends on some future event to determine whether one has failed to honor it. In a wide variety of contexts, if a police officer, prosecutor, judge or defense attorney does something that the Constitution regulates, one cannot determine if the constitutional rule has been violated or not until some point in the future.

The Court has used three methods to create these rules. One looks to prejudice, and …

A Structural Vision Of Habeas Corpus, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

As scholars have recognized elsewhere in public law, there is no hermetic separation between individual rights and structural or systemic processes of governance. To be sure, it is often helpful to focus on a question as primarily implicating one or the other of those categories. But a full appreciation of a structural rule includes an understanding of its relationship to individuals, and individual rights can both derive from and help shape larger systemic practices. The separation of powers principle, for example, is clearly a matter of structure, but much of its virtue rests on its promise to help protect the …

Litigation Strategies For Dealing With The Indigent Defense Crisis, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The indigent defense delivery system in the United States is in a state of crisis. Public defenders routinely handle well over 1,000 cases a year, more than three times the number of cases that the American Bar Association says one attorney can handle effectively. As a result, many defendants sit in jail for months before even speaking to their court-appointed lawyers. And when defendants do meet their attorneys, they are often disappointed to learn that these lawyers are too overwhelmed to provide adequate representation. With public defenders or assigned counsel representing more than 80% of criminal defendants nationwide, the indigent …

Using Protection Of Privacy Legislation To Erode Privacy: R. V. Chehil, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal here in R. v. Chehil overturns the trial judge's conclusion that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the police obtained from the computer manifest. With respect, their application of the totality of the circumstances test is subject to question at several important points. For example, in assessing the objective reasonableness of an expectation of privacy, the Court of Appeal relies on the fact that the Westjet website informs customers that "information will be disclosed to the authorities without your knowledge and consent as required by law." The court then …

Deferring Ineffectiveness Claims To Collateral Review: Ensuring Equal Access And A Right To Appointed Counsel, Thomas M. Place

Faculty Scholarship

The article addresses a problem in criminal procedure that leaves an increasingly large number of defendants without a remedy to protect their right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. The problem stems from the decision of states to move ineffectiveness claims from direct appeal to the post-conviction process and the fact that over half the states limit access to post-conviction remedies to defendants who are in custody. If the defendant’s prison sentence is completed during the period direct appeal is pending, or, in some jurisdictions, before the collateral review process is completed, the defendant is …

Veteran Police Officers And Three-Dollar Steaks: The Subjective/Objective Dimensions Of Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

This Article addresses two issues surrounding probable cause and reasonable suspicion that test the line between subjective and objective standards in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the extent to which a particular police officer’s training and experience ought to be considered in measuring probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and the relevance of the officer’s subjective beliefs about the presence of a weapon in assessing the reasonable suspicion required to justify a frisk. Although both questions have split the lower courts and remain unresolved by the Supreme Court, the majority of courts treat them inconsistently, recognizing the importance of an officer’s training, experience, …

Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

The 1960 Supreme Court Term laid the groundwork for the subsequent revolution in the relationship between state and federal law accomplished by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The "most famous search and seizure case in American history" - Mapp v. Ohio - would be decided that Term. Mapp held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" required the exclusion of evidence found through an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the states a rule that had previously applied only to federal law enforcement. Mapp became a pivotal chapter in the …

Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts: The Future Of The Confrontation Clause, Joseph Henn

Barry Law Review

The purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities’ decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, this article will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided. Second, this article explores the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington is inherently flawed. This article will further discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led …

Japan's New Lay Judge System: Deliberative Democracy In Action?, Zachary Corey, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Drug Law Reform—Retreating From An Incarceration Addiction, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Now, thirty years into the "war on drugs," views about the law's reliance on punishment to fix the drug problem are less conciliatory and more absolute: "[t]he notion that 'the drug war is a failure' has become the common wisdom in academic ... circles." Those who have most closely studied the results of the "war" believe that it has "accomplished little more than incarcerating hundreds of thousands of individuals whose only crime was the possession of drugs." More importantly, they believe that it has had little if any effect on the drug problem: "Despite the fact that the number of …

The International Criminal Court: An Informal Overview, Jerry E. Norton

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

An Escape Route From The Medellin Maze, Anthony S. Winer

Faculty Scholarship

Many in the United States who follow international law have tracked the course of the Supreme Court's 2008 Medellin case' especially closely, both before and after the Court's issuance of the decision. The case concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the "Vienna Convention, "Convention" or "VCCR"), which imposes certain obligations on the authorities of a State Party when they imprison a national of another State Party. Among these duties is the obligation to inform the foreign prisoner that the Convention affords the prisoner the right to communicate, while in prison, with consular officials from the prisoner's home country. Authorities …