King & Proctor on Padilla’s Puzzles

Nancy J. King and Gray Proctor (Vanderbilt Law School and affiliation not provided to SSRN) have posted Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts (Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 23, No. 3, February 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article addresses questions that may face courts as defendants seek relief under the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that counsel’s failure to adequately inform the defendant of the deportation consequences of conviction constituted deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment. Issues addressed include: express waivers of review in plea agreements; what constitutes deficient advice and prejudice sufficient for a finding of ineffective assistance; the retroactive application of Padilla to cases on post-conviction review; federal habeas review of state court decisions rejecting Padilla-type claims; procedural default, successive petition, and time bars to federal habeas review of Padilla claims; and other collateral relief. This draft includes citations to emerging case authority available as of October 28, 2010.

“Pat-Downs at Airports Prompt Complaints”

The New York Times story is here:

In the three weeks since the Transportation Security Administration began more aggressive pat-downs of passengers at airport security checkpoints, traveler complaints have poured in.

Some offer graphic accounts of genital contact, others tell of agents gawking or making inappropriate comments, and many express a general sense of powerlessness and humiliation. In general passengers are saying they are surprised by the intimacy of a physical search usually reserved for police encounters.

November 19, 2010 | Permalink

Anderson on Innocence and Harmless Error

Helen A. Anderson (University of Washington – School of Law) has postedRevising Harmless Error: Making Innocence Relevant to Direct Appeals on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The direct appeal of a convicted defendant is almost never concerned with actual innocence. The system seems to privilege procedural claims, and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an appellate court to take seriously a claim of factual error such as the claim that a witness lied or was mistaken. The disconnect between appeals and actual innocence is ironic, since most jurisdictions provide funding for direct appeals, but not for collateral attacks where claims of actual innocence can be litigated. This article focuses on one aspect of appellate review that could in theory be made more likely to provide relief to the innocent through more reliable fact-finding: the harmless error analysis. It is in assessing whether an error was harmless that the courts come closest to thinking about innocence on appeal. According to the Innocence Project, the leading cause of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification, followed by “unvalidated/improper forensics,” false confessions, and informants. Current harmless error analysis runs contrary to these findings, giving undue weight to precisely the kind of evidence often implicated in wrongful convictions, and not sufficiently considering the impact of erroneously admitted evidence on the jury. This article looks at the history of harmless error analysis, how it is applied in cases where the likely causes of wrongful conviction are implicated, and what changes can be made to reinvigorate harmless error so that courts take seriously the possibility of innocence given what we have learned through DNA exoneration’s.

Saul on Criminality and Terrorism

Ben Saul (University of Sydney – Faculty of Law) has posted Criminality and Terrorism (COUNTER-TERRORISM, THE SECURITY IMPERATIVE AND THE RULE OF LAW, Katja Samuel et al., eds., World Justice Project: Nottingham University & Club of Madrid, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This chapter identifies threats to the rule of law posed by criminal law responses to terrorism at the national, regional and international levels, including the controversial shift over time from treating terrorism as ordinary crime to stigmatizing terrorism as a special kind of offence against political life, public order, and international social values. First, vague or over-inclusive definitions of terrorism raise serious concerns about freedom from retroactive criminal punishment. Secondly, ancillary, preparatory or inchoate offences (frequently attracting disproportionate penalties) which hang off the primary definition of terrorism in various legal systems have sometimes been crafted too broadly. Thirdly, group-based offences (such as membership, association or ‘material support’ offences) linked to the proscription of terrorist organizations often deny procedural fairness and rights of review. Fourthly, speech-related offences including incitement, advocacy or glorification of terrorism engage concerns about freedom of expression, of religion and from non-discrimination. Fifthly, the modification of traditional criminal procedure in dealing with terrorism impairs fair trial rights and the independence and impartiality of tribunals. Finally, boundaries of different branches of law (including domestic criminal law and international humanitarian law) have been blurred, risking double jeopardy and generating problems for the integrity of all such branches of law.

November 18, 2010 | Permalink

“Poll Shows Growing Support for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; Capital Punishment Ranked Lowest Among Budget Priorities”

This press release is on the website of the Death Penalty Information Center:

(Washington, D.C.)  The Death Penalty Information Center today released the results of one of the most comprehensive studies ever conducted of Americans’ views on the death penalty. A national poll of 1,500 registered voters conducted by Lake Research Partners shows growing support for alternatives to the death penalty compared with previous polls. A clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder, including life with no possibility of parole and with restitution to the victim’s family (39%), life with no possibility of parole (13%), or life with the possibility of parole (9%).

In states with the death penalty, a plurality of voters said it would make no difference in their vote if a representative supported repeal of the death penalty; and a majority (62%) said either it would make no difference (38%) or they would be more likely to vote for such a representative (24%).
—