DOCSLIB.ORG

Charles Lindbergh, Caryl Chessman, and the Exception Proving the (Potentially Waning) Rule of Broad Prosecutorial Discretion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charles Lindbergh, Caryl Chessman, and the Exception Proving the (Potentially Waning) Rule of Broad Prosecutorial Discretion ISSUE 20:1 SPRING 2015 Charles Lindbergh, Caryl Chessman, and the Exception Proving the (Potentially Waning) Rule of Broad Prosecutorial Discretion Wesley M. Oliver* Perhaps ever since legislatures started defining crimes, they have given prosecutors a variety of ways to prosecute the same conduct. Courts have, almost without exception, deferred to legislatures’ broad definitions of crime. Kidnapping statutes are the exception. The high profile execution of Caryl Chessman in 1960 for kidnapping prompted considerable scholarly criticism and prompted courts nationwide to impose limiting constructions on kidnapping statutes. Recently, scholars have called for a curb in prosecutorial discretion generally, attributing the explosion in the prison population to broad criminal codes, mandatory minimums, and sentencing guidelines that provide prosecutors leverage in plea negotiations. In the last two terms, the United States Supreme Court appears to have taken on this concern, limiting the scope of federal criminal statutes, twice in cases involving criminal doctrines that are part of most state criminal codes, and once in a case expressly recognized by many of the parties as an example of overcriminalization. The Supreme Court has rarely considered “ordinary” criminal law doctrines, typically interpreting complex or jurisdictional aspects of federal criminal statutes. And neither the Supreme Court, nor any appellate court in non-kidnapping cases, has used overcriminalization as a basis for limiting the scope of a criminal statute. Academics have long criticized the growing prison population, often attributing the phenomenon to increasing prosecutorial discretion, a product of overcriminalization. The Supreme Court’s recent cases suggest that America’s mass incarceration epidemic may be able to * Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Scholarship, Duquesne University. B.A., J.D., University of Virginia; LL.M., J.S.D., Yale. I appreciate the comments of Wayne LaFave and Frank Zimring on an earlier version of this article. ISSUE 20:1 SPRING 2015 2 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW Vol. 20:1 prompt reforms in a way that Caryl Chessman’s execution prompted reforms in kidnapping laws. I. Introduction........................................................................................... 2 II. Courts Allow Broad Criminal Codes to Transfer Discretion to Prosecutors ..................................................................................... 9 A. A Choice Among Crimes...................................................... 11 1. Burglary .......................................................................... 13 2. Robbery ........................................................................... 17 3. Kidnapping ...................................................................... 22 B. In for a Penny, in for a Pound ............................................... 22 1. Statutory Interpretation ................................................... 24 2. Complicity and Conspiracy ............................................. 26 3. Felony Murder ................................................................. 28 III. The Special Historical Exception of Kidnapping ............................ 30 IV. Recent Limits on the Scope of Substantive Criminal Law .............. 57 A. Rosemond and the Doctrine of Natural and Probable Consequences ....................................................................... 61 B. Burrage and the Felony Murder Rule ..................................... 65 C. Yates and Overcriminalization ................................................ 68 V. Conclusion......................................................................................... 72 I. INTRODUCTION Historically, courts have accepted – and indeed been a part of – the transfer of power from judges to prosecutors. They have accepted and created broad definitions of crimes that provide prosecutors in relatively less serious cases the option of obtaining more severe sentences, or using the threat of a broadly defined crime as leverage to obtain a plea. Kidnapping has, however, been an exception to this rule. One high-profile execution for kidnapping in 1960 led courts nationwide to impose limiting constructions on kidnapping statutes to prevent excessive discretion from vesting in the hands of prosecutors. Recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court suggest that courts may be expanding their concern about prosecutorial discretion beyond the anomalous example of kidnapping. Over the last two decades, academics have raised substantial concern about the effect of the ever-expanding scope of substantive ISSUE 20:1 SPRING 2015 2015 PROVING THE RULE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION 3 criminal law.1 The most frequently offered explanation for the expanding definition of crimes is that the political popularity of tough- on-crime laws has led legislatures to create a host of new crimes – carjacking and RICO, for instance – that carry substantial penalties.2 The reality is far more complex. Even traditional crimes, such as burglary, robbery, and kidnapping have, through a concert of action between courts and legislatures, been given sufficiently expansive definitions that encompass even nominal or incidental criminal conduct. Additionally, courts have been the primary actors in fashioning and retaining broad theories of liability for group criminal conduct and felony murder. Complicit themselves in the expanding definitions of crime, courts are rarely heard to express concern, frequently heard from academics, that substantive criminal law is shifting power from judges to prosecutors.3 1 Kimberly D. Bailey, Watching Me: The War on Crime, Privacy, and the State, 47 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1539, 1579 (2014); WILLIAM J. STUNTZ, THE COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 81–82, 260 (2011); Zachary Price, The Rule of Lenity as a Rule of Structure, 72 FORDHAM L. REV. 885, 887 (2004) (observing that frequently drafted “broad language in criminal statutes may reflect an effort to delegate the definition of terms to courts and executive officials”). 2 See, e.g., Stephanos Bibas, The Real-World Shift in Criminal Procedure, 93 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 789, 806 (2003) (“Legislators pass myriad new criminal statutes to prove their toughness on crime.”); Michael A. Simons, Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines: A Case Study in Controlling Federalization, 75 N.Y.U. L. REV. 893, 897– 98 (2000) (describing Congress as primarily responsible for expansion of scope of federal criminal powers); Sara Sun Beale, What’s Law Got to Do With It? The Political, Social, Psychological and Other Non-Legal Factors Influencing the Development of (Federal) Criminal Law, 1 BUFF. CRIM. L. REV. 23 (1997); Gerard E. Lynch, RICO: The Crime of Being a Criminal, 87 COLUM. L. REV. 661, 723 (1987) (observing that RICO “is so much broader than other criminal statutes” that the amount of discretion it confers on prosecutors may be seen as “different in kind” than other statutes that overlap with other offenses); William J. Stuntz, The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, 100 MICH. L. REV. 505, 518–19 (2001) (describing expansion and contraction of “core” crimes that involve judicial interpretation of doctrines, but observing that legislatures have the primary role in defining new types of crimes, which are defined quite broadly); Jay M. Zitter, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Carjacking Statutes, 100 A.L.R.5th 67 (2002) (observing that “the area of behavior criminalized by state carjacking statutes overlaps a number of other state statutes,” requiring courts to consider whether crimes implicate double jeopardy issues). 3 By contrast, judges are quick to complain about procedures, particularly relating to sentencing, which shift powers to prosecutors. See, e.g., Kate Stith & Jose Cabranes, Judging Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 1247, 1265 (1997); Albert W. Alschuler, The Failure of Sentencing Guidelines: A Plea for Less Aggregation, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 901, 924–25 (1991). Judges have also been heard to complain about procedural rules giving procedural advantages to prosecutors in other ISSUE 20:1 SPRING 2015 4 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW Vol. 20:1 There is, however, a glaring exception to the trend toward ever- expanding criminal statutes. Decisions interpreting the definition of state kidnapping laws frequently express the concern that such laws be interpreted narrowly so as not to permit that charge when the victim’s detention is merely incidental to another crime.4 Remarkably, courts interpreting kidnapping statutes frequently express concern that a broad interpretation of these statutes would vest too much power in the hands of prosecutors.5 The origins of this concern, about the scope of kidnapping statutes, lie in the once famous case of Caryl Chessman, sentenced to die in California for kidnapping women he briefly detained as he robbed and sexually assaulted them.6 Neither robbery nor rape carried the death sentence in California at that point, but kidnapping did in California and several other states. Kidnapping laws became considerably more broad and punitive with the outrage over the 1932 kidnapping of the infant son of Charles Lindbergh in 1932, soon after the elder Lindbergh made international headlines when he became the first American to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.7 Commentators were quick to criticize the interpretation of a kidnapping law in a California case that allowed a contexts. See United States
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020
    Protection from Unfunded Mandates: A Unifying Principle of All Counties eCounty Lines | November 2020 There are various protections in place for local governments from unfunded mandates, both in state statute, as well as the execution of laws by the Governor and his departments. However, there is no absolute protection. Collectively, commissioners—assisted by Colorado Counties Inc.—are the strongest defense against unfunded mandates. A statute enacted in 1991 prohibits unfunded mandates, with some exceptions. “No new state mandate or an increase in the level of service…shall be mandated by the general assembly or any state agency on any local government unless the state provides additional moneys to reimburse such local government for the costs …such mandate or increased level of service for an existing state mandate shall be optional on the part of the local government” (CRS 29-1-304.5). The Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) took this statute a step further by allowing local governments to end their participation in a program, if funding was inadequate. “Except for public education through grade 12 or as required of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration” (Article X, Section 20(9)). Unfortunately, in 1995 these two provisions were defeated twice via State Supreme Court decisions. In the first case, Weld County attempted to withhold their portion of payments towards a public assistance program administered through the county. However, the court did not find this payment to be a subsidy (as referenced in TABOR) and declared that as an arm of the state, counties were essentially part of the state and therefore could not subsidize themselves, so the exemption was not allowed [Romer v.
    [Show full text]
  • She Is Not a Criminal
    SHE IS NOT A CRIMINAL THE IMPACT OF IRELAND’S ABORTION LAW Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. First published in 2015 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom © Amnesty International 2015 Index: EUR 29/1597/2015 Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo: Stock image: Female patient sitting on a hospital bed. © Corbis amnesty.org CONTENTS 1. Executive summary ................................................................................................... 6
    [Show full text]
  • SWEET SMELL of SUCCESS" Introducing SUSAN HARRISON a Norma-Curtle1gh Productions Picture Released Through United Artists
    CAST AND CREDITS HECHT, HILL and LANCASTER Present BURT LANCASTER and TONY CURTIS In "SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS" Introducing SUSAN HARRISON A Norma-Curtle1gh Productions Picture Released through United Artists J. J. Hunsecker ••••••••••••..••••••• Burt LancaBter Sidney Falco••••••••••··•••·•••·•··· Tony Curtis Susan Hunsecker ····•·••···•••••••••• Susan Harrison Steve Dallas •••••••••••••••••••••••• Marty Milner Frank D'Angelo ••·••••••••••••••••··• Sam Levene Rita •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Barbara Nichols Sally . Jeff Dc>.nne11 Robard •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Joseph Leon Mary .••...••.•..•.••...••.••••••••.• Edith Atwater Harry Kello ••••••••••••••.•••••••••• Emile Meyer Herbie Temple•·••••••••·•••••••••••• Joe Frisco Otis Elwell •••••••••••.••••••••••••• David White Leo Bartha•••••••••••···•·•········· Lawrence Dobkin Mrs. Bartha • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • Lurene Tuttle Mildred Tam ••••••••••••••••••••••••. Queenie Smith Linda • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Autumn Russell Manny Davis······•····•••······••••• Jay Adler Al Evans • • • . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . Lewis Charles Produced by James Hill Directed by Alexander Mackendrick Screenplay by Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman From the Novelette by Ernest Lehman Photography by James Wong Howe, A.s.c. Art Direction by Ed.ward Carrere Music Scored and Conducted by Elmer Bernstein S01 . .;s by Chico Hamilton and Fred Katz Running time: 103 minutee 11/6/ 56 l. Workin~ Script Por TIE S':iEET SNELL OF SUCCZSS FAD;: IN: 1 EXT. INT. GLOBE 1-fE':!SPAPER BUILDING - DUSK - N. Y. A r ow of newspaper delivery trucks is lined up aga1-nst the lo~~ loading bay, waiting for the edition. In the foreground a lai"ge clock establishe~ the time as 8! 10 PM. A rumbling noise war-ns the rr.en to take their positions; a few seconds lat e::'.' t he b~les of newspapers come sliding the spiral chutes on~o t~e mo·..r1n~ belts from which they are manhandled onto the tru~ks. Much !1o1se a:1d s!:.ou t ing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Politics in Districting the Federal Circuit System
    PUSHING BOUNDARIES: THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN DISTRICTING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SYSTEM Philip S. Bonforte† I. Introduction ........................................................................... 30 II. Background ............................................................................ 31 A. Judiciary Act of 1789 ......................................................... 31 B. The Midnight Judges Act ................................................... 33 C. Judiciary Act of 1802 ......................................................... 34 D. Judiciary Act of 1807 ....................................................... 344 E. Judiciary Act of 1837 ....................................................... 355 F. Tenth Circuit Act ................................................................ 37 G. Judicial Circuits Act ........................................................... 39 H. Tenth Circuit Act of 1929 .................................................. 40 I. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 ...................................................... 42 J. The Ninth Circuit Dilemma ................................................ 44 III. The Role of Politics in Circuit Districting ............................. 47 A. The Presence of Politics ..................................................... 48 B. Political Correctness .......................................................... 50 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................. 52 † The author is a judicial clerk
    [Show full text]
  • Today's Fbi. It's for You
    PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT, NOT A JOB POSTING FOR THE SPECIAL AGENT POSITION. The FBI is collecting resumes of those interested in future employment as an FBI Agent. Individuals that meet the FBI’s Special Agent preliminary requirements will be notified by email once the actual application is available. TODAY'S FBI. IT'S FOR YOU. The strength of the FBI is its people – employees from different backgrounds, each possessing a myriad of skills, working together to ensure the safety of our communities and the nation. Each year, people from every industry, ethnicity, and environment apply to become members of the most prestigious law enforcement agency in the world. A unique, challenging and life-changing experience that will stretch you beyond your comprehension, the Special Agent position is more than a job – it is a calling to protect and defend your country, uphold and enforce the laws in your community and provide law enforcement assistance where and when, necessary. Bring your skills and dedication. We’ll make you an Agent. FBI Special Agents are responsible for enforcing over 300 federal statutes and conducting sensitive national security investigations. A career as a Special Agent offers unparalleled opportunities for new experiences and personal and professional growth. Listed below are some of our most sought after specialties: FBI SPECIAL AGENT: CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANT (CPA) All crime leaves a money trail - at the FBI, we track it back to its source, investigate the participants and develop a case. As such, the FBI is seeking Certified Professional Accountants (CPAs) for the Special Agent position.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Sin and Judicial Independence: Providing Accountability for Justices
    William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 50 NO. 4, 2009 ORIGINAL SIN AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUSTICES PAUL D. CARRINGTON & ROGER C. CRAMTON * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE ............................ 1106 A. The Founding Vision ............................ 1109 1. The Federalists’ “Ark of Safety” .................. 1115 B. Removing a Disabled Judge: The Pickering Case ..... 1128 C. The Impeachment of Justice Chase: Are Justices Different? ........................... 1141 1. How To Remove A Justice .................... 1144 CONCLUSION ....................................... 1152 * Paul D. Carrington, Professor of Law, Duke University; Roger C. Cramton, Stevens Professor of Law Emeritus, Cornell University. Thanks to James Boyle, Henry Monaghan, Randall Roth, and Sanford Levinson for their helpful comments and to Michael Schobel for his research assistance. Thanks also to those attending the conference on The Citizen Lawyer presented at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary, to whom this Essay was presented on February 8, 2008, and to the Duke Law faculty workshop. 1105 1106 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50:1105 I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE The independence of the judiciary is an enduring and defining objective of the legal profession. We lawyers, of all citizens, have the greatest stake in shielding judges from intimidation or reward. And that task of protecting judicial independence stands today at the very top of the agenda of the American legal profession. 1 The integrity of law and legal institutions requires more than just the protection of judges. It is equally dependent on the willingness and ability of judges to maintain virtuous disinterest in their work. 2 Some might explain their occasional failings as manifesta- tions of the original sin inherited from Adam; 3 whatever their source, the proclivities of judges to indulge or celebrate themselves are perpetual temptations and judicial self-restraint is a perpetual challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Department of Justice and the Limits of the New Deal State, 1933-1945
    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE LIMITS OF THE NEW DEAL STATE, 1933-1945 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Maria Ponomarenko December 2010 © 2011 by Maria Ponomarenko. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ms252by4094 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David Kennedy, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Richard White, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Mariano-Florentino Cuellar Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Acknowledgements My principal thanks go to my adviser, David M.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. - 1iIt" ..' i· ! 1",,1 ------------...-, ------------------'-""-- - SURVEY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES IN STATE COURT SYSTEM~ A Publication of the National Center for State Courts 1660 Lincoln Street-Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 April 1977 Volume 3 Number 4 Volume 3 will extend through calendar year 1977. ,; ------------------------------------------------------------------~-~------------------------- CONTENTS Page Fore\':(;rd .................................................... v Board of Directors ............................................ vi Rank Order of Judicial Salaries, Population, and Per Capita Income in the Fifty States ........................ Judicial Salaries In Appellate and Trial Courts ..................... 3 Key to Abbreviations. 5 Salaries -- Courts of Appellate and General Jurisdictions and State Court Administrators .................................. 6 Salarit's - Courts of Special or Limited Jurisdiction. .. 12 Apr'l'ndix I -- Future Salaries and Pending Legislation .............. 20 Copyright 1977 Apppndix II - Floating Salary Statutes ............................ 24 Nationdl ("pnler for Stalt' Courh Council of State Court Representatives ............................ 26 This publication is supported by Grant Number 77-DF-99-0021, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. LEAA bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained herein. ii iii National Center for State Courts
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Aggravators Sam Kamin
    Florida Law Review Volume 65 | Issue 3 Article 3 May 2013 Vicarious Aggravators Sam Kamin Justin Marceau Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sam Kamin and Justin Marceau, Vicarious Aggravators, 65 Fla. L. Rev. 769 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol65/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kamin and Marceau: Vicarious Aggravators VICARIOUS AGGRAVATORS Sam Kamin∗ & Justin Marceau∗∗ Abstract In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was constitutional so long as it provided a non-arbitrary statutory mechanism for determining who are the worst of the worst, and therefore, deserving of the death penalty. As a general matter, this process of narrowing the class of death eligible offenders is done through the codification of aggravating factors. If the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more aggravating factors exists, then a defendant convicted of murder is eligible for the ultimate sentence. There is, however, a critical, unanswered, and under-theorized issue raised by the use of aggravating factors to serve this constitutionally mandated filtering function. Can death eligibility be predicated on vicarious aggravating factor liability—is there vicarious death penalty liability? A pair of cases, collectively known as the Supreme Court’s Enmund/Tison doctrine, recognize that there is no per se bar on the imposition of the death penalty for non-killing accomplices.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943 Schmidt, Regin
    www.ssoar.info Red scare: FBI and the origins of anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943 Schmidt, Regin Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Monographie / monograph Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Schmidt, R. (2004). Red scare: FBI and the origins of anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-271396 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de Copyright © Museum Tusculanum Press RED SCARE Regin Schmidt: Red Scare. FBI and the origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943; e-book. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0012 4 Copyright © Museum Tusculanum Press Regin Schmidt: Red Scare. FBI and the origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943; e-book. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0012 4 Copyright © Museum Tusculanum Press Regin Schmidt RED SCARE FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943 e-Book Regin Schmidt: Red Scare. FBI and the origins of Anticommunism MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS in the United States, 1919-1943; e-book. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0012 4 UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2000 [e-book – 2004] Copyright © Museum Tusculanum Press Regin Schmidt: Red Scare.
    [Show full text]