In District of Columbia v. Wesby, the Supreme Court determined that a prudent officer had probable cause to arrest attendees at a festive house party for criminal trespass without a warrant. While reactions from scholars of criminal law have begun to emerge, this Piece is the first to conceive of the decision through the lens of property theory. In this regard, the Piece offers two principal claims. First, on interpretive grounds, it contends that,...
Criminal Law
Introduction No matter how it begins, a police encounter may end in death, especially when the encounter involves people of color. There is no safe haven. Police-involved shootings happen everywhere—on the street, in a parked car, in a public park, or inside one’s own home. Police violence is a constant, its occurrence so predictable that […]
On any given day, local jails detain nearly half-a-million people who cannot afford bail. Opposition to this status quo, and to monetary conditions of pretrial release more broadly, has reached a fever pitch in recent years. Critics from across the political spectrum decry bail as a wellspring of mass incarceration and acknowledge its profoundly discriminatory effects, particularly within low-income communities of color. Academic studies link bail...
The American criminal justice system is a system of pleas. Few who know it well think it is working. And yet, identifying plausible strategies for law reform proves challenging, given the widely held scholarly assumption that plea bargaining operates “beyond the shadow of the law.” That assumption holds true with respect to substantive and constitutional criminal law—the two most studied bodies of law in the criminal justice system—neither...
Introduction The Constitution protects us from criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, after defining reasonable doubt, many trial courts will then instruct jurors “to search for the truth” of what they think really happened. Defendants have argued that such truth-related language reduces the state’s burden of proof to […]
In the 1932 case Gebardi v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the failure of a statute to punish a party necessary to the commission of the proscribed conduct reflected an affirmative legislative policy to leave such party unpunished. As such, the Court declined to use the conspiracy statute to frustrate Congress’s grant of immunity. In doing so, the Court carved out an exception to the federal conspiracy statute: an exception...
Introduction In March of 2012, in Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court announced a new type of cause under the cause-and-prejudice exception to procedural default in federal habeas cases. This new type of cause allowed federal courts to review a subset of claims that had been procedurally defaulted in state habeas proceedings due to the […]
In 1996, the Supreme Court handed down Whren v. United States, which prohibits inquiry into police officers’ subjective motivations in conducting a search or seizure when there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause on which to base the search. The Whren doctrine has largely restricted the availability of the exclusionary rule and 42 U.S.C. §...
8 U.S.C. § 1324 prohibits, among other activities, harboring aliens who enter the United States without authorization. In the more than six decades since the law was passed, federal courts’ understandings of what “harboring” means have varied. This Note argues that recent decisions in the Second and Seventh Circuits, both of which narrow the scope of liability...
Several recent high-profile criminal cases have highlighted the dynamic nature of identity crimes in a modern digital era and the boundaries prosecutors sometimes push to squeeze arguably wrongful conduct into an outdated legal framework. In many cases, two federal statutes—18 U.S.C § 1028 and § 1028A—provide prosecutors with potent tools to aggressively pursue...