Making jury instructions understandable

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2018

Bail reform is happening. Across the country, jurisdictions are beginning to recognize that contemporary pretrial systems rooted in money bail are discriminatory, ineffective, and (by and large) unconstitutional. A common and substantial component of contemporary reforms is an increased reliance on conditional release as an alternative to pretrial incarceration. In many ways, conditional release represents an improvement over money bail, but the practice of conditional release has its own pitfalls. This Article identifies unforeseen and unplanned harms that can result from a system of conditional release and proposes five principles that jurisdictions can follow to eliminate or mitigate these harms. As the options for pretrial conditions continue to expand, judges may impose more conditions than are necessary, including conditions that are burdensome and ineffective. Because pretrial monitoring is inexpensive—especially when subsidized by user fees for pretrial monitoring—there is a...

1975

The constitutional foundation underlying the system of trial de novo in Massachusetts was subjected to a frontal assault during the Survey year. The system survived, but there is reason to doubt its continuing validity. The debate over the wisdom of maintaining a two-tiered system of trial courts has been wide-ranging. 1 One of the c~ief complaints against the trial de novo system is that it insulates tt1al judges from any meaningful appellate review. 2 This isolation fosters an environment in which trial judges can, with impunity, ignore the constraints placed upon judges in courts of record. It is exceedingly difficult to obtain relief from even the most outrageous action by a district court judge, short of wiping the slate clean and starting anew in superior court. As several cases decided during the Survey year demonstrated, that option is not always satisfactory to defendants. I. ENBINDER v. CoMMONWEALTH 3 The petitioner in Enbinder v. Commonwealth brought a writ of error seeking relief from the action of a Boston municipal court judge who had found the defendant guilty of larceny and assessed a fine of $10. 4 The petitioner based her complaint on the judge's offer to dismiss the case if she would sign a document releasing the department store and store detective from civil liability. 5 The petitioner contended

2017

SINCE 1984, THE pretrial detention rate for federal defendants has been steadily increasing. Recent work has aimed to address why the detention rate continues to rise and if there may be alternatives that could slow or reverse this trend. The presumption for detention statute, which assumes that defendants charged with certain offenses should be detained, has been identified as one potential factor contributing to the rising detention rate. Therefore, in this article I examine the relationship between the presence of the presumption and release rates. I will also examine the effect, if any, of the presumption on the release recommendations made by pretrial services officers. Finally, I will compare outcomes-defined as rates of failures to appear, rearrests, or technical violations resulting in revocation of bond-for presumption and non-presumption cases.Historical BackgroundFor almost 200 years, the federal bail system was premised on a defendant's right to bail for all non-capi...

2018

WHEN A PERSON (i.e., a defendant)1 is charged with committing a federal offense, judicial officials have the discretion to determine whether that defendant should be released pretrial, subject to the criteria required by the Eighth Amendment and under 18 U.S.C. §3142 of the federal statute. Under both guiding documents, the right to bail is clear and paramount, with detention reserved only for rare cases where “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” (see 18 U.S.C. §3142). When ordering release, judicial officials are required to determine why a personal recognizance bond will not suffice and what conditions, if any, should be set to allow for federal pretrial release (18 U.S.C. §3142). The decision to release a defendant into the community or detain the defendant until his or her case is disposed is of crucial importance. Not only can a defendant’s liberty, and t...

CLEBP, 2018

American law requires a broad right to pretrial release, but allows jurisdictions to create rational and fair laws allowing pretrial detention in narrow categories of cases. When jurisdictions declare who is eligible for release and detention, they create a "release/detain" dichotomy, a notion extending back hundreds of years in both America and England. Until now, virtually all jurisdictions have expressly declared most persons eligible for release, but with limited exceptions articulated through detention eligibility laws based primarily on criminal charge as a proxy for pretrial risk. These release/detain dichotomies have been clouded through the use of money, which has led to the unwise release or (far more frequently) the unlawful detention of people accused of crimes. For a number of reasons, including increased focus upon the use of money as a condition of release or a mechanism of detention, many jurisdictions are now either choosing or being forced to craft new laws articulating-upfront and on purpose-which defendants are to be released, and which are to be eligible for, and ultimately held through, pretrial detention. In most cases, jurisdictions crafting these new laws have articulated a desire to move from a charge-based system to a "risk-based" or "risk-informed" system of release and detention.

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)

2012

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

... Export to: BibTeX Export Citation What's this? Contact Information. Myles Frederick McLellan (Contact Author). University of Ottawa ( email ) Ottawa, Ontario Canada 705-770-1348 (Phone). Feedback to SSRN (Beta), ...

1978

I. Overview and interim findings 2. Enhancing the policy-making utility of crime data 3. The repeat offender as a priority for prosecutor/ 4. Police effectiveness in terms of arrests-that result in convictions 5. The prosecuting attorney as a Manager 6. The high-fear crimes of robbery and burglary 7. The low-conviction crime of sexual assault 8. Prosecuting cases involving weapons 9. Prosecution of such "victimless crime's as gambling. prostitution. and drug offenses Scdpe and prediction of recidivism I I. Geographic and demographic' patterns of crime 12. Impact of victim characteristics on the disposition of violent crimes 13. Female defendants and case processing