Criminal Law

Print
Article
v88.6
Asymmetric Subsidies and the Bail Crisis
John F. Duffy
Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.
Richard M. Hynes
John Allan Love Professor of Law and Nicholas E. Chimicles Research Professor of Business Law and Regulation, University of Virginia School of Law.

We thank Josh Bowers, Kellen Funk, Sandra Mayson, John Monahan, Megan Stevenson, Stephen Ware and workshop participants at the University of Virginia and at the Scalia Law School of George Mason University for valuable comments. We thank Christian Fitzgerald, Ariel Hayes, Caitlyn Koch, Molly Mueller, and Louis Tiemann for valuable research assistance. We also thank Paul Prestia for responding to our inquiry on a factual matter. All errors remain our own.

The last several years have seen “a truly astounding” and “unprecedented” outpouring of scholarship and commentary decrying the large number of individuals held in pretrial detention, measuring the negative social consequences of such detention, and debating what to do about it.

Print
Comment
v88.4
Vindicating the Right to Be Heard: Due Process Safeguards Against Government Interference in the Clemency Process
Jay Clayton
B.A. 2016, Swarthmore College; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School

Many thanks to The University of Chicago Law Review editors and Professor John Rappaport for their help and advice.

In 2020, the U.S. federal government carried out ten exe-cutions, more than in any year since 1896. In a single week in January 2021, it carried out three more.

Print
Article
v88.3
Qualified Immunity's Boldest Lie
Joanna C. Schwartz
Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.

For helpful comments on earlier drafts, thanks to Karen Blum, Roger Clark, Barry Friedman, Christopher Kemmitt, James Pfander, Richard Re, Alexander Reinert, Lou Reiter, Jack Ryan, Seth Stoughton, and Stephen Yeazell. For help constructing the dataset of Ninth Circuit cases, many thanks to John Wrench and Anya Bidwell. For excellent research assistance, thanks to Bryanna Taylor and Hannah Pollack. Thanks also to the editors at The University of Chicago Law Review for excellent editorial assistance.

Print
Comment
87.7
California’s Proposition 47 and Effectuating State Laws in Federal Sentencing
Brenna Ledvora
BS 2015, Northwestern University; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Vickie Sanders was convicted in a California state court of felony drug possession, sixteen years before California voters would pass Proposition 47. Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014, reduces most possessory drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and allows California courts to retroactively redesignate individuals’ felonies as misdemeanors.

Online
Essay
Her Alone: Feminist Perspectives on the Future of Spousal Privileges
Alexandra Aparicio
A.B. 2018, Princeton University; J.D. Candidate, 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

The author thanks Professor Emily Buss and the staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful feedback on this essay.

On August 30, 2019, the New Mexico Supreme Court prospectively abolished the state’s spousal communications privilege.

Print
Article
87.3
Some Doubts About “Democratizing” Criminal Justice
John Rappaport
Assistant Professor of Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School.

I am indebted to Monica Bell, Merav Bennett, Stephanos Bibas, Andrew Crespo, Justin Driver, Roger Fairfax, Trevor Gardner, Bernard Harcourt, Emma Kaufman, Brian Leiter, Richard McAdams, Tracey Meares, Martha Nussbaum, Dan Richman, Jocelyn Simonson, Roseanna Sommers, and Fred Smith for terrific comments on drafts. Thanks as well to Will Baude, Genevieve Lakier, Lauren Ouziel, and participants at the Criminal Justice Roundtable, the Junior Criminal Justice Roundtable, the University of Chicago Works-in-Progress Workshop, and the University of Virginia Faculty Workshop for generative conversations. For research assistance, thanks to Merav Bennett, Dylan Demello, Morgan Gehrls, Alli Hugi, Kevin Kennedy, and especially Alex Song. The Darelyn A. and Richard C. Reed Memorial Fund furnished financial support.

For the uninitiated, a brief rehearsal of the facts of the matter: The United States presently incarcerates over two million individuals, with another four million under other forms of correctional supervision.

Print
Comment
86.8
Exculpatory Evidence Pre-plea without Extending Brady
Brian Sanders
BA 2017, Pepperdine University; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School

I thank Professor Douglas Baird for his critiques, especially in regard to big boy clauses. I thank Brendan Anderson, Tiberius Davis, and Zachary Reynolds for listening to me talk incessantly about exculpatory evidence and for providing indispensable feedback. I thank Charles F. Capps for all his insights and especially for his critique of my formal logic.

Online
Essay
Criminal Justice Reform and the Courts
Rachel E. Barkow
Rachel E. Barkow is the Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy at NYU Law School.

This essay is a revised and excerpted version of Chapter 10 of Rachel Elise Barkow, Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration (Harvard 2019).

Prosecutors seem to be the primary target for criminal justice reformers today, and with good reason: they are key gatekeepers to whether criminal charges get brought or not, and the particular charges they bring often dictate a defendant’s sentence.

Print
Essay
86.2
Assessing the Empirical Upside of Personalized Criminal Procedure
Matthew B. Kugler
Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

The authors thank Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Lee Fennell, Woodrow Hartzog, William Hubbard, Aziz Huq, Orin Kerr, Richard McAdams, Michael Pollack, John Rappaport, RichardRe, Victoria Schwartz, Christopher Slobogin, Rebecca Stone, and Alexander Stremitzer, along with workshop participants at UCLA Law School and The University of Chicago Law School, and attendees at the Privacy Law Scholars Conference, and The University of Chicago Law Review Symposium on Personalized Law for helpful conversations and comments on earlier drafts. The authors also thank Liz Sharkey for helpful research assistance. Finally, the authors thank the Carl S. Lloyd Faculty Fund for research support.

Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
Sidley Austin Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
Imagine a person is being questioned by the police. If this is a mere friendly chat, then the police need not advise that person of her rights. If, however, this is a “custodial interrogation,” then the person—the suspect—must generally be given a Miranda warning for any incriminating statements she makes to be admissible in court.