All content categorized with: Criminal Legal System
Filter
Post List
¡Silencio! Undocumented Immigrant Witnesses and the Right to Silence
At a time referred to as "an unprecedented era of immigration enforcement," undocumented immigrants who have the misfortune to witness a crime in this country face a terrible decision. Calling the police to report that crime will likely lead to questions that reveal a witness's inmigration status, resulting in detention and deportation for the undocumented immigrant witness. Programs like Secure Communities and 287(g) partnerships evidence an increase in local immigration enforcement, and this Article argues that undocumented witnesses' only logical response to these programs is silence. Silence, in the form of a complete refusal to call the police to report crime or participate in local prosecutions, is a potent and defensible act of civil disobedience by the estimated twenty-two million imigrants in this country with anything less than full-citizenship status. There is a growing body of empirical evidence showing that local immigration enforcement leads to racial profiling, is unjustifiably expensive for local crime-fighting budgets, and results in the local immigrant population simply deciding not to call the police for any reason at all. This Article takes those arguments one step further, contending that immigrant communities can take matters into their own hands and protect themselves by choosing silence as an organized response to a regime that has rendered local police a threat, not a support, to millions of people within our borders. A commitment to silence by the immigrant community will lend a sense of urgency to these protests and spur real action from local law enforcement officials who appreciate the dangers of prioritizing immigration enforcement over community safety for all residents, citizen and noncitizen alike.Urgent Reform ‘in the Name of Our Children’: Revamping the Role of Disproportionate Minority Contact in Federal Juvenile Justice Legislation
Disproportionate minority contact ("DMC") has plagued the United States juvenile justice system for decades, but federal legislation has lacked the clarity and guidance to battle this affliction. A strong partnership must exist between state and federal entities in order to directly target DMC and thereby decrease the appallingly disproportionate number of minority children who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. This Note discusses the problem of DMC, identifies state and private efforts to combat the crisis, and indicates deficiencies in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act as well as its reauthorization bill, S. 678. The Note urges Congress to revisit the reauthorization bill and supplement it with stand-alone legislation that will address DMC more effectively. Such law reform is urgent and timely, because the needs of at risk minority children have never been more pronounced than they are today.The Unconstitutionality, Ineffectiveness, and Alternatives of Gang Injunctions
Gang violence across America puts in jeopardy the peace and tranquility of neighborhoods. Cities are challenged to keep their communities safe from gang violence. One common way in which cities attempt to combat violent gang activity is by using gang injunctions. Gang injunctions are court orders that prohibit gang members from conducting already-illegal activities such as vandalism, loitering, and use or possession of illegal drugs or weapons within a defined area. These injunctions, however, also prohibit otherwise legal activity such as associating with others within the restricted area of the injunction, using words or hand gestures, and wearing certain clothing. The increased use of gang injunctions to combat violent gang activity is a controversial tactic. The use of gang injunctions raises many constitutional concerns, including violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Even if interpreted as constitutional, gang injunctions have been proven ineffective in preventing and deterring gang members from engaging in violent gang activity. Critics believe that gang injunctions create gang cohesiveness, animosity towards the police, and relocate the violent crime created by gang members by pushing gang members into adjacent neighborhoods just outside the injunction's target area. Finally, there are several proven-effective alternatives to gang injunctions. This Note explores the unconstitutionality of gang injunctions, reveals the ineffectiveness of gang injunctions, and investigates more effective and efficient alternatives.Performing Discretion or Performing Discrimination: Race, Ritual, and Peremptory Challenges in Capital Jury Selection
Research shows the mere presence of Blacks on capital juries-- on the rare occasions they are seated--can mean the difference between life and death. Peremptory challenges are the primary method to remove these pivotal participants. Batson v. Kentucky developed hearings as an immediate remedy for the unconstitutional removal of jurors through racially motivated peremptory challenges. These proceedings have become rituals that sanction continued bias in the jury selection process and ultimately affect the outcome of capital trials. This Article deconstructs the role of the Batson ritual in legitimating the removal of African American jurors. These perfunctory hearings fail to meaningfully interrogate the reasons prosecutors offer as race neutral motivations for peremptorily striking Black jurors.Teaching Whren to White Kids
This Article addresses issues at the intersection of United States v. Whren and Grutter v. Bollinger at a time when the reality of racial profiling was recently illustrated by the high-profile arrest of a prominent Harvard professor. Given the highly racialized nature of criminal procedure, there is a surprising dearth of writing about the unique problems of teaching issues such as racial profiling in racially homogeneous classrooms. Because African American and other minority students often experience the criminal justice system in radically different ways than do Whites, the lack of minority voices poses a significant barrier to effectively teaching criminal procedure. This Article critiques current law school pedagogical approaches and suggests that we must both re-think academic methods for teaching criminal procedure within the classroom and expose 'post-racial" mythologizing outside the classroom.Choosing Those Who Will Die: The Effect of Race, Gender, and Law in Prosecutorial Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Durham County, North Carolina
District prosecutors in the United States exercise virtually unfettered power and discretion to decide which murder cases to prosecute for capital punishment. According to neoclassical theory of formal legal rationality, the process for determining criminal punishment should be based upon legal rules established and sanctioned by the state to communicate the priorities of the political community. The theory therefore argues in favor of a determinate mode of decision-making that diminishes the importance of extrinsic elements such as race and gender in the application of law. In the empirical research herein reported, I test this theory using death eligible cases in Durham County, North Carolina from 2003 to 2007. The analysis indicates that although law has an important effect in determining criminal punishment, extrinsic elements such as race and gender overwhelm the law in influencing prosecutorial decisions to go for death. Durham county prosecutors are 43% more likely to seek the death penalty when a Black defendant kills a White victim compared to a situation where a Black defendant kills a Black victim. The analysis also demonstrates the existence of a gender gap in prosecutorial decision-making. Female murder victims are significantly more likely to precipitate a capital prosecution compared to male victims. These results have important policy implications. Despite publicized attempts by the Supreme Court to eradicate the twin evils of arbitrariness and discrimination from our system of capital punishment, these problems persist. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to devise explicit mechanisms to channel the discretionary judgments of local prosecutors toward greater reliance upon legal precepts rather than extra-legal considerations such as race and sex. As Justice William Brennan warned in his dissent in McKleskey v. Kemp, "The way in which we choose those who will die reveals the depth of moral commitment among the living."Do Not (Re)Enter: The Rise of Criminal Background Tenant Screening as a Violation of the Fair Housing Act
Increased landlord discrimination against housing applicants with criminal histories has made locating housing in the private market more challenging than ever for individuals with criminal records. Specifically, the increased use of widely available background information in the application process by private housing providers and high error rates in criminal record databases pose particularly difficult obstacles to securing housing. Furthermore, criminal record screening policies disproportionately affect people of color due to high incarceration rates and housing discrimination. This Note examines whether the policies and practices of private housing providers that reject applicants because of their prior criminal records have an unlawful, disparate impact on racial minorities by denying such individuals the benefits of housing in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3600, et. seq. The author compares existing enforcement guidance under Title VII employment discrimination law and suggests solutions for balancing the concerns of private housing providers and strong policy reasons behind increasing access to private housing for individuals with criminal records.Let’s Not Jump to Conclusions: Approaching Felon Disenfranchisement Challenges Under the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 invalidates voting qualifications that deny the right to vote on account of race or color. This Article confronts a split among the federal appellate courts concerning whether felons may rely on Section 2 when challenging felon disenfranchisement laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows felon disenfranchisement challenges under Section 2; however, the Second and Eleventh Circuits foresee unconstitutional consequences and thus do not. After discussing the background of voting rights jurisprudence, history of felon disenfranchisement laws, and evolution of Section 2, this Article identifies the points of contention among the disagreeing courts. The crux of this Article is that both sides of the debate have erred. Both sides wrongly assume that the consequences of accepting these vote denial challenges are predictable. However, because a standard approach to vote denial challenges under Section 2 does not currently exist, no court can foresee the results of allowing such challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws. Therefore, predicting the constitutional implications of accepting these challenges without first identifying an appropriate analysis is impossible. This Article concludes by proposing an analysis for consideration. The proposed approach is a tailored version of sliding scale scrutiny--an analysis that the United States Supreme Court following Burdick v. Takushi, now applies to constitutional voting rights claims. Using this adapted approach, the Supreme Court can resolve the current split in authority and find that Section 2 is a viable vehicle for challenging racially-discriminatory felon disenfranchisement laws.Separate and Unequal: Federal Tough-on-Guns Program Targets Minority Communities for Selective Enforcement
This Article examines the Project Safe Neighborhoods program and considers whether its disproportionate application in urban, majority- African American cities (large and small) violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law. This Article will start with a description of the program and how it operates-the limited application to street-level criminal activity in predominately African American communities. Based on preliminary data showing that Project Safe Neighborhoods disproportionately impacts African Americans, the Article turns to an analysis of the applicable law. Most courts have analyzed Project Safe Neighborhoods' race-based challenges under selective prosecution case law, which requires a showing by the defendant that the program had a discriminatory impact and was effectuated with the intent to discriminate. But this case law is not definitive. Project Safe Neighborhoods is a program that operates to treat African Americans separately and unequally. The program targets African American neighborhoods and thus targets African Americans. Under well-established law, where a program effectively classifies citizens by race, it is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification.Appellate Review of Racist Summations: Redeeming the Promise of Searching Analysis
This Article addresses the question of the appropriate response of appellate counsel for Black defendants tarred at trial by the indirect deployment of powerful racial stereotypes. The crux of the problem is that even now, the courts only take exception to blatant racist appeals, even though indirectly racist summations can have a determinative impact at trial. In laying out the contours of the problem, we must draw upon the discipline of rhetoric, or persuasion through oration, to describe various techniques of intentional indirectness that prosecutors use to obviate the possibility of appellate review under the stringent standards of the Fourteenth Amendment.
