June 2011

This article was written by guest author Ruth A. Moyer, a 2008 cum laude graduate of Temple Law School. She currently practices criminal defense law in Philadelphia. Additionally, she has written an article, “Why and How a Lower Federal Court’s Decision that a Search or Seizure Violated the Fourth Amendment Should Be Binding in a State Prosecution: Using ‘Good Sense’ and Suppressing Unnecessary Formalism,” which will appear in Vermont Law Review. The January 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Richter[i] ostensibly reaffirms the federalist principle that federal habeas courts should defer to state court adjudications of federal constitutional claims. As a more transcendent matter, however, Richter may ironically weaken an important justification for such deference. Pursuant to the federal habeas corpus writ, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,[ii] a state prisoner may challenge…

This article was written by guest author, Dr. J.C. Oleson. Dr. Oleson is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of Auckland. Prior to joining the University of Auckland in June of 2010, Dr. Oleson served as Chief Counsel to the Criminal Law Policy Staff of the United States Federal Courts. His full-length article on risk assessment in sentencing is forthcoming in the November 2011 issue of the SMU Law Review. The imposition of a criminal sentence is an excruciatingly difficult task, requiring sentencing judges to carefully balance different (and frequently competing) theories of punishment. In some jurisdictions, judges enjoy nearly unfettered discretion; in others, judges impose initial sentences but parole boards make the final determinations about when prisoners are ready for release; in other jurisdictions, judicial authority is…

This article was written by guest authors Jon Reidy, a Houston-based litigator; Michael J. Stephan, Law Clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and Guha Krishnamurthi, Law Clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. They are all graduates of The University of Texas School of Law, class of 2010. It is a well-known maxim that a lawyer shall not advise his client to violate the law.[i]  At the same time, the ground reality is that lawyers often tell their clients to engage in conduct that, at least technically, violates the law.[ii]  These lawyers likely characterize such communication not as advising their clients to engage in illegal conduct, but rather as merely informing their clients as to the consequences of such…

Guest author Tat Chee Tsui wrote this article. Mr. Tsui received his LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley in 2010. First, it is appropriate to disclose that I was a student of Professor John Yoo at Berkeley Law School. However I believe it would not have any effect on my point of view below if I provide sufficient grounds. Professor Yoo was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for former President George Bush. During his tenure, he made certain arguments (the so-called “Torture Memo” [1]) regarding the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. Professor Yoo has been criticized by the general public for this. Some professors and students at UC Berkeley, as well as people outside the school, urged Professor Christopher Edley, Jr., The Dean of Berkeley Law School, to remove Yoo…