The Imaginary Attorney
To reverse a conviction or capital sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must meet the two-prong […]
Criminal Justice
Smoking Guns: the Supreme Court’s Willingness to Lower Procedural Barriers to Merits Review in Cases Involving Egregious Racial Bias
Guest post by Professor Carrie Leonetti.* Professor Leonetti is a professor of criminal and constitutional law at the University of
Supreme Court Declines to Consider Challenge to Mandatory Life Sentences for Juveniles
Ahmad Bright was sixteen years old when he was involved in the shooting death of 19-year-old Corey Davis in 2006.[1]
Private Prisons Profit Under Trump
While the “Trump Bump”—the notable growth of the stock market since the election—has impacted numerous sectors of the economy, one industry
Contrary to California Case Law, Gang Injunctions Infringe Targets’ Right to Familial Association
INTRODUCTION In its efforts to combat crime committed by street gangs—a societal ill that unquestionably warrants tough measures—California has pursued
When science meets civil rights
The recent Supreme Court case, Moore v. Texas, illustrates how constitutional rights may be influenced by scientific and technological advancements. Other legal areas, such as the use of polygraphs, capital punishment, and forensics, also reveal the complicated framework between science and civil rights.
Who Are the Cops?: The Semantic Fight Between Local and Federal Law Enforcement
While outrage over President Trump’s stance on immigration enforcement proliferates on social media, the new administration’s policies have also led
Suppressed Evidence and the Right to a Fair Trial: Turner v. United States
In 1984, Catherine Fuller, a Washington D.C. mother of six, was walking to the pharmacy when she was abducted from
Plea Bargaining and the Supreme Court
A few weeks ago, I wrote about ineffective assistance of counsel and plea-bargaining in the context of the upcoming
(Ir)Rational Actors: The Right to Trial in Lee v. United States
In 2009, Jae Lee–a legal resident but not an American citizen– was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute. The evidence against Lee was staggering, and his lawyer incorrectly promised that a plea deal would not put him in danger of deportation. The plea deal reduced Lee’s prison time from a 24-30 month range to a year and one day. Possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute, however, is an aggravated felony. Thus, Lee’s plea also mandated “deportation and permanent exile from the United States.”
As a Matter of Law and Policy, the Ninth Circuit’s “Provocation Rule” Must Stand
This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the judicially created “provocation rule” comports with the Court’s precedents.[1] The