2019 CrimFest Registration
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
First NameLast NameInstitutionemail addressSunday dinner?Date restrictions?
Serve as Moderator?
Present Paper?Paper TitleBrief Paper DescriptionAddress
2
John AcevedoAlabamajacevedo@law.ua.eduYNYYCrime FantasiesBuilding on the idea of moral panics this paper defines the catagory of crime panics as a way to highlight deficiencies in the criminal process. A crime panic target activity that is already classified as criminal but does so in a way that reveals deep procedural deficiencies in the criminal justice system. Crime panics are exemplified by the Salem witchcraft trials and the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s and 1990s. By bringing ongoing criminal law issues into conversation with legal history scholarship on early American witch-hunts, this article clarifies our understanding of the relationship between politics and large-scale criminal investigations, and highlights areas for future reform.
3
AmnaAkbarOSUamna.a.akbar@gmail.comTBDNYYAn Abolitionist Horizon for Police ReformThis paper examines the structural turn in understanding of police violence in legal scholarship, and the persistence of the "reparative frame," in reform, that insists on the goal of police reform should be to repair and restore the police. I argue the reparative frame hollows out structural critiques of police, and law scholars can learn from abolitionist campaigns/organizing around the country, who are modeling new ways to think about police reform, focused on divestment rather than investment in the police.
4
LauraApplemanWillametteappleman@willamette.eduYNoneYYThe Treatment-Industrial Complex: Alternative Corrections, Private Correction Companies, and Criminal Justice Debt
This Article explores and analyses the little-researched area of post-release treatment debt: how the required treatment programs for those individuals released, paroled, or placed on probation has formed its own version of cash-register justice. The unregulated nature of the world of probation, work camps, electronic monitoring, required rehabilitation and therapy has created a corrupt treatment and alternative corrections industry, further burdening those who interact with the criminal justice system.
5
MiriamBaerBrooklynmiriam.baer@brooklaw.eduTBDNYYLaw Enforcement's LochnerPaper identifies three key procedural doctrines (private search doctrine, broad deference to grand jury subpoenas, corporate exclusion from the privilege against self-incrimination) and the ways in which each doctrine undergirds modern day investigations and prosecutions of white-collar and regulatory crimes. Projects a world in which the doctrines either cease to exist or are significantly changed.
6
DavidBallSanta Clarawball@scu.eduTBDNYNThe Peter Parker ProblemI presented a short version/outline of this last year. I plan to present a complete (but rough) draft this year. Here's the abstract.

Under Salerno, pretrial detainees may be held if they pose a risk to public safety. The way this risk is calculated, however, focuses only on speculative, low-risk negative events--it fails to consider the systemic (and certain) impacts of pretrial detention for the people who could be released without incident. "What if I release him and he kills someone?" holds much more sway over judges (and all human beings) than "What if I drive a bunch of families into poverty by failing to release large numbers of people and causing them to lose their jobs?" One could make the argument that this is simply a Learned Hand calculation--the cost is the risk of harm times the magnitude of the harm--yet such discussions rarely take place at the actuarial or arithmetic level. They are, almost always, emotional.

This article attempts to explain why only the low-risk negative events hold sway, using insights from behavioral psychology. Counterfactuals are negative events that are easy to explain. Negative events (a future murder) are salient (they stick in the mind), their salience means their perceived probability increases (the "plane crash" versus car crash effect), and causation is flattened (release leads to the harm). Of course, this simplicity--our brain's natural desire to use the most efficient heuristic possible--sacrifices accuracy and alternative explanations. When Peter Parker, the teenager bitten by a radioactive spider, is using his new powers only to enrich himself, he has an opportunity to stop a thief. He doesn't, and the thief soon afterwards kills Peter's beloved Uncle Ben. Peter does not, of course, say to himself, "If only this man had gotten treatment for his antisocial personality disorder, had an education sufficient to give him a living wage, or lived in a country with gun control that made fatal encounters much rarer, this would have never happened"--conclusions which would lead him to become a therapist, or an early-childhood educator, or a gun-control activist. No, he says "If only I had stopped him" and decides to, of course, become Spider-Man. He is committing himself to a plan in which he stops crime only by reacting to it, rather than trying to stop it at its cause. He is using surgery, not inoculation. That this seems logical to readers is the Peter Parker problem.

This paper, by applying psychological theories of the counterfactual, helps illustrate why individual decisions in pretrial (detain or release) are biased towards incapacitation--and why it makes sense emotionally even if it results in greater foregone gains across more people than it avoids losses.
7
Shima
Baradaran Baughman
Utahshima@law.utah.eduTBDMonday onlyNY
A National Review of Prosecutors
This paper will explore why prosecutors make the charging decisions they make. It is based on data from the largest national randomized controlled trial of prosecutors. The responses came with qualitative information that will help give us insight into the black box of prosecutorial discretion. For instance, the paper may shed light on the follwoing: Do prosecutors have guidelines they follow? Do they rely on BARD or Probable cause as a charging standard? Are they interested in justice? evidence? support of victims? protection of the public? deterrence? retribution?
Professor Shima Baradaran Baughman
University of Utah College of Law
383 S. University St., Room 4243
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

8
AsliBashirPennabashir@law.upenn.eduYNN (late reg.)Bifurcated Sentencing The American criminal sentencing process is resistant to meaningful reform because of the expectation that the sentencing function may simultaneously serve the conflicting and incommensurate goals of retribution and crime prevention. The increasing emphasis on utilitarian aims in the fundamentally retributive process of criminal sentencing has resulted in increasingly severe sentences while failing to adequately serve any of legitimate purposes of state punishment.
This Article proposes a solution to this problem: restructuring the sentencing process. Specifically, legislatures should enact statutes that divide the sentencing process in two narrowly-focused procedures. The first stage, the criminal sentence, would be a procedure focused on criminal punishment that aligns punishment with the goals of retribution and restorative justice in relation to the adjudicated criminal act. The second stage, the civil sentence, would take place only when further rehabilitation and or incapacitation is potentially necessary, and would focus exclusively on utilitarian goals tailored to individual risks and needs. In order to authorize additional confinement, the civil sentencing authority would be required to provide the same constitutional protections afforded in civil commitment procedures.
9
ValenaBeetyArizona Statevalena.beety@gmail.comYNYYState Habeas Reform since the NAS Report: Changed Science WritsIn the ten years since the publication of the NAS Report, state post-conviction proceedings have emerged as pivotal to the regulation of false or misleading forensic evidence in the criminal legal system. A new tool for courts is the ability to review post-conviction relief petitions based specifically on changed science. These habeas petitions, sometimes referred to as "junk science writs," allow petitioners to challenge their convictions if the science in their case has changed. Given the fluctuation and rapid development in varying forensic fields, these petitions are particularly applicable for criminal convictions reliant on forensic evidence. This article reviews the growth of changed science writs, and provides avenues for other states to similarly allow review of these specific habeas petitions.
10
Paul Belonick UC Hastings Law Schoolbelonickpaul@uchastings.eduYNNYA Doctrinal Square Peg? Blockchain and the Fourth AmendmentThe paper discusses the likely doctrinal implications of blockchain architecture, which upends physical world analogies upon which much of Fourth Amendment doctrine rests. The article shows how blockchain's unique and novel architecture advances several critiques of current Fourth Amendment black-letter rules (particularly Katz' focus on privacy-as-secrecy and the Third Party Doctrine), may force us to rethink how we classify computer data for Fourth Amendment purposes, and complicates the particularity requirements of the Warrant Clause.
Judge Stephanos Bibas
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington DC 20002-8003
11
StephanosBibasThird Circuit / Pennsbibas@law.upenn.eduYesMonday-Tuesday?YesN
Dean Richard Bierschbach
Wayne State University Law School
471 W. Palmer Street
Detroit, MI 48202
12
RichardBierschbachWayne Staterbierschbach@wayne.eduYNYN
13
HannahBloch-WehbaDrexelhbw@drexel.eduYNYYFourth Amendment TransparencyThis paper explores how transparency values are expressed in the Fourth Amendment and how digital searches challenge those values, and fleshes out how a renewed commitment to public transparency and oversight should be structured in order to promote reformist goals.
14
ErinBraatzSuffolk Law Schoolebraatz@suffolk.eduYNYYThe Myths and Possibilities of Progress: Penal Change and the Eighth AmendmentThis explores notions of progress in the interpretation and application of the Eigth Amendment
Jacob Bronsther
Harvard Law School
1563 Massachusetts Avenue
Griswold 120
Cambridge, MA 02138

15
KielBrennan-MarquezUConn
kiel.brennan-marquez@uconn.edu
NNYN
16
JacobBronstherHarvardjbronsther@law.harvard.eduNNYYA Corrective Justice Theory of PunishmentThis paper outlines a “corrective justice” theory of punishment and considers its sentencing implications. The theory conceives of deterrent punishment as an equitable remedy for an offender’s contribution to the criminality in society. The offender makes society whole by decreasing the threat of crime in the future.
17
Darryl BrownUniv. of Va.brownd@virginia.eduyesNYYJudicial Predictions of CatastropheEarly-stage project examining judges' predictions about the future effects of judicial (mostly Supreme Court) decisions. The focus is mostly on crminal procedure issues. Questions include how often are judges' predictions proven correct or incorrect; are judges' track records better for some kinds of predictions than others; what is the role of predictions (a consequentialist form of reasoning) in judicial opinions as a rationale for a conclusion, especially when accompanied by textualist, precedential or other non-consequentialist rationales; is that role or function different for falsifiable v. non-falsifiable predictions.
Professor Michael Cahill
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
18
MichalBuchhandler-RaphaelWashington & Lee
buchhandlerraphaelm@wlu.edu
YNNYFamilial Compassion and Mercy Killing
My paper considers whether the emotion of compassion may
ground a partial excuse for mercy-motivated homicides.
Psychological studies establish that various emotions are potent
and pervasive drivers of judgement and decision making,
including those that carry harmful effects.
Recognizing that defendants’ anger and fear may reduce
murder charges to manslaughter,
I argue that compassion should also support a mitigating defense.
Professor Gabriel Mendlow
Michigan Law, University of Michigan
625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
19
MichaelCahillBrooklynmtcahill@hotmail.comYESNoneYN
20
BennettCapersBrooklynbennett.capers@brooklaw.eduNNoneYTBDAgainst ProsecutionThis project looks at returning agency to crime victims by rethinking the role of public prosecutors.
21
JennyCarrollAlabamajcarroll@law.ua.eduTBDNYes happy to yes pleaseTBDI'm working on a piece that considers the effect of the "non-monetary" conditions of pre-trial release on defendants (particularly indigent defendants). I argue that while bail reform movements have done tremendous work, reform around non-monetary conditions of relases have been neglected despite the fact that such conditions often carry tremendous cost (both monetary and otherwise) and are often used as tools to create new charges for folks who violate the conditions and to ensure pretrial incarceration. Courts (or more often pretrial services) often make the assumption that such conditions will ensure the accused's return to court and ensure the safety of the community, yet, unlike monetary bail, there has been no efforts I can locate to link such goals to the conditions of release. This piece is the first in what I hope to be a series that examines this topic.
22
JackChinUC Davis School of Lawgjchin@ucdavis.eduYNNYCollateral Consequences and Ex Post FactoThis paper will address whether collateral consequences such as disenfranchisement and employment disqualification are or should be prohibited by the ex post facto clauses
23
LouisCholden-BrownN/Alcholdenbrown@gmail.comYNNYTBDPotential and risks of hyperlocal prosecutorial governance via home rule
24
AmosCohenBrooklyn Defender Servicesacohen@bds.orgYNYYSearching Homes and Charging Everyone: Poor People with No Privacy and No RightsPolice executing search warrants in homes routinely charge everyone they encounter and not exclusively the "target," under strained theories of constructive and presumed possession. In arraignments and police reports they subsequently recite numerous personal details about each person. This practice eliminates privacy, upsets the persumption of innocence and contradicts the purpose behind search warrants.
25
Frank RudyCooperUNLVfrankrudy.cooper@unlv.eduTBDNYYSEE BELOWSEE BELOW
26
Frank RudyCooper UNLVfrankrudy.cooper@unlv.eduYNYYesBook Chapter: Intersectionality and PolicingDefining intersectionality and explaining the effect of absence of intersectional considerations on recent issues in policing as part of book on racial bias
27
AndrewCrespoHarvardAcrespo@law.harvard.eduTBDNNYN/A I aim to present a draft amicus brief that distills and applies the Fourth Amendment framework I’ve developed in a forthcoming article (“Probable Cause Pluralism”) to a suppression issue in an upcoming SCOTUS case.
28
Caroline Davidson Willamette Cdavidso@willamette.eduYNoneYYAging Out— Domestic Prosecutions for International Crimes and the Passage of TimeThis article explores the impacts of the typically substantial lapses in time before domestic trials for international crimes and the implications for international criminal justice.
29
DeborahDennoFordham Law ddenno@law.fordham.eduYNYYMalingering
Malingering, or feigning illness, is a major issue that courts confront during criminal proceedings where the defendant’s mental capabilities are called into question. The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of malingering, describe the different ways courts define and approach malingering among criminal defendants, and examine various trends and case examples where malingering was a central issue. This article’s cases come from the Neuroscience Study—a large-scale empirical research project—which offers an unprecedented opportunity to consider how neuroscientific evidence fits into the framework of the legal system from multiple and diverse perspectives. I collected the Neuroscience Study’s 800 criminal law cases, which addressed neuroscientific evidence in any capacity from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2012, using the Westlaw and Lexis legal databases. This project focuses on the 553 cases that concern defendants only (and not victims). Initial examinations show that of the 553 defendant cases, about 18% (100 cases) concern "malingering,” based on my search terms. Given that courts and prosecutors often presume that a defendant may be malingering in cases where the stakes are high in terms of punishment, research is needed to examine this matter in a level of detail that no one else has attempted—most particularly when the neuroscientific evidence conflicts with older and more traditional estimates of feigning.
30
MihailisDiamantisIowamihailis-diamantis@uiowa.eduNNNYLimiting Identity in Criminal LawApplies the philosophy and psychology of personal identity to criminal law. Argues that people's identities change throughout their lives, and this imposes limits (currently unacknowledged) on the extent to which the criminal justice system can prosecute and punish people for past crimes.
31
TonyDillofWayne Statedillof@wayne.eduYNYYesObjective PunishmentPunishment theory / retributivism. Asks whether the sentence offenders deserve should turn on indiosyncratic factors like psychological profie of offender or offender's baseline well-being.
32
RaffDonelsonLSUrdonelson1@lsu.eduYNYYNatural Punishment This paper explores “natural punishment,” or adverse consequences that result from a wrongdoer’s misconduct without the intervention of someone who intends to cause retributive harm to the wrongdoer. At its most general description, the paper seeks to vindicate “natural punishment” as an idea and to illustrate how this conception of punishment would have positive, far-reaching consequences for criminal law practice.
33
AvlanaEisenbergFlorida Stateaeisenberg@law.fsu.eduYNYNN/AN/A
Attorney Eric Fish
Federal Defenders of San Diego
225 Broadway Ste 900
San Diego, CA 92101-5030

34
SheldonEvansSt. John'sevanss@stjohns.eduYNoneYYPassive FederalismCritiques of the Categorical Approach of statutory interpretation in sentencing decisions (Armed Career Criminal Act), Immigration decisions, and other contexts.
35
EricFish
Federal Public Defender, San Diego
erifish@gmail.comYleaving early TuesNYTranslating CrimesThis project critiques the way our criminal and immigration systems use prior convictions
36
BrennerFissellHofstrabrenner.m.fissell@hofstra.eduYNNYLocal Criminal LawThis article will investigate the criminal law created by municipalities/cities/local governments. I plan to canvass the various state law preemption doctrines and see how they work as applied to the context of municipal criminal law. I hope to assess whether current preemption law should be more or less strict in its regulation of criminalization at the local level, and whether certain types of criminal offenses are more or less appropriate for this kind of criminalization.
37
ThomasFramptonHarvard (Climenko)tframpton@law.harvard.eduNNYYFor Cause: Rethinking Racial Exclusion and the JuryThis paper identifies and discusses large racial disparities in the use of challenges for cause.
Professor Michael Gentithes
University of Akron School of Law
150 University Ave
Akron, Ohio 44325
38
ThomasFramptonHarvardtframpton@law.harvard.eduTBDNYYFor Cause: Racial Exclusion and the Criminal JuryChallenges for cause sound boring, and we never think about them. But, it turns out that the racial disparities in the exercise of peremptory strikes that we all know and hate---and that have spawned 10,000 law review articles---also exist (and might be worse!) when it comes to challenges for cause. This paper (1) identifies massive racial disparities in the use of "for cause" challenges, (2) explores the doctrinal black hole around the issue; and (3) suggests we might be better off scrapping challenges for cause altogether.
Professor Anthony Ghiotto
225 Hillsborough St.
Raleigh, NC 27603

39
MichaelGentithesAkronmgentithes@gmail.comY
Sunday-Monday only
NYStopping witness without suspicionAnalyzes recent cases justifying stops of suspected witness, not themselves suspected of any wrongdoing, under Illinois v. Lidster
Professor Cynthia Godsoe
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
40
AnthonyGhiottoCampbell Universityghiotto@campbell.eduNNNNN/AN/A
41
CynthiaGodsoeBrooklyncynthia.godsoe@brooklaw.edumaybMonday only YYVague neglect This very early-stage project (to be co-authored with Carissa!) argues that child neglect statutes present the concerns underlying vagueness doctrine in an extreme, but unrecogized,
42
RussellGold
Wake Forest University School of Law
russell.gold@wfu.eduYNNYVolunteer ProsecutorsThis article will explore the practice of prosecutors' offices requiring prospective employees to volunteer without pay even though they are admitted to the bar--either as an entry into a paid position or simply for the experience. I plan to critique this practice insofar as it would tend to filter potential prosecutors in these offices by family income, which is particuarly troubling because it makes prosecutors even less likely to resemble the targets of their work. It also tends to create conformity pressures and widens prosecutors' nets beyond what the legislature has permitted via its appropriations power.
43
LaurynGouldin
Syracuse University College of Law
lgouldin@law.syr.eduYNYYFraming for Release
I will circulate a section of this paper which focuses on the framing of pretrial risks and how that framing influences judicial decision-making.
Professor Rachel Harmon
University of Virginia School of Law
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903

44
EveHananUNLVeve.hanan@unlv.eduYNYYMisdemeanorsWill have short sketch of idea for article: Misdemeanor Manners: Sociobiological Impediments to Adversarial Justice. Building on scholarship noting the barriers to asserting rights in misdemeanor courts (informality, cost of asserting rights, etc.), I aim to identify aspects of architecture, choreography, and expected affect, and to discuss how, even when asserting rights is not unduly costly, it feels like an impossible breach of etiquette. My particular focus is on how quickly defendants absorb the required, nonadversarial manners of the courtroom.
45
RachelHarmonUVArharmon@virginia.eduN
avail before 3 pm on Tues
YYThe Law of PolicingChapter of forthcoming casebook on law governing the police.
46
Fareed NassorHayatCUNYfareed.hayat@law.cuny.eduYESNPossiblyYPreserving Due Process: Applying the Frye Standard to State Gang Experts This article assets that gang expert testimony is social scientific in nature and like other scientific testimony must abide by the well establish high standard
47
CarissaHessickNorth Carolinachessick@email.unc.eduYNoneYYFinancing Prosecutor ElectionsThis paper will address the issue of campaign contributions to prosecutor elections. It will discuss the ethical and policy issues associated with contributions. And it will present data from an original nationwide study.
48
SeanHillGeorgetownsh1570@georgetown.eduYNNYRace to Risk AssessmentThis article contends that the endorsement of risk assessment instruments stems from, and fortifies, a misinterpretation of the criminal justice system’s relationship to race and class. The paper proposes an alternative framework derived from critical race theory, which unearths how algorithmic instruments sustain dominant perceptions of race and further legitimize the targeting of Black citizens for coercion.
49
JancyHoeffelTulanejhoeffel@tulane.eduYNoneYYRight to Counsel at Initial AppearanceThis is a work-in-progress with co-author Pam Metzger. The article will argue that right to counsel must not simply "attach" at initial appearance but must be provided per the Sixth Amendment, and in order to satisfy a defendant's other constitutional rights that depend upon counsel.
Professor K. Babe Howell
CUNY School of Law
2 Court Square
Long Island City, NY 11101
50
EstherHongNYUesther.hong@nyu.eduNNNNN/AN/A
51
BabeHowellCUNYbabe.howell@law.cuny.eduNNYYGang Prosecutions and the Punishment of Peer Group AssociationThis article will analyze the mismatch between conspiracy law and street gang conspiracy cases.
Professor E. Lea Johnston
University of Florida Levin College of Law
309 Village Drive
Box #117625
Gainesville, FL 32611
52
TonjaJacobiNorthwestern
t-jacobi@law.northwestern.edu
YNYYHidden Revolutions in Criminal ProcedureThere have been at least three major shifts in criminal procedure that have occurred while the Supreme Court has denied making any change: the resurgence of trespass analysis in U.S. v. Jones, the move from an exclusionary rule to an flexible case-by-case exclusionary standard in Herring v. U.S., and a more gradual move away from subjective analysis and toward objective analysis, in areas such as consent—compare e.g. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte to IL v. Rodriguez. This paper empirically assesses language used in criminal procedure oral arguments and shows there have been significant changes in language associated with each doctrinal area, belying the justices’ claims in each case that they are merely following pre-existing doctrine.
53
LeaJohnstonUniversity of Floridajohnstonl@law.ufl.eduNNYYSquaring Delusions with InsanityThis outline/early draft will assess the current treatment of delusions within states’ insanity standards and may recommend a particular treatment given the purposes of the insanity excuse and cognitive deficiencies associated with delusions.
54
AlexisKarteronRutgers
alexis.karteron@law.rutgers.edu
NNYYFamily Separation and Unconstitutional Parole ConditionsAn examination of parole and probation restrictions that violate constitutional rights to parent children, maintain intimate relationships, and marry. Parole/probation officers in some jurisdictions effectively supplant family courts as arbiters of whether people under community supervision can see their children, spouses, and intimate partners. All contact with close family members is sometimes barred entirely. Such conditions undermine reentry and rehabilitation, and harm the people under supervision and their loved ones. There are insufficient procedural protections to ensure constitutional protections for those relationships are respected. The article will propose alternative procedures that protect constitutional rights and reflect traditional family law standards.
55
ZacharyKaufmanCurrently Stanford, joining Houston
zachary.kaufman@aya.yale.edu
YNNYProtectors of Predators or Prey: Bystanders and Upstanders amid Sexual CrimesIn order to align law and society more closely with morality, this Article proposes a more holistic, aggressive approach to prompt involvement by third parties who are aware of specific instances of sexual crimes in the United States.
56
JosephKennedyUNCkennedy4@email.unc.eduYNYYMass Incarceration: What is Left to Say?The mass incarceration literature has exploded and is incredibly rich. This paper reviews the major themes of that literature and asks what is missing
Professor Joshua Kleinfeld
Northwestern, Pritzker School of Law
375 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611

57
J.D.KingW&Lkingj@wlu.eduYNYYGamesmanship and Criminal ProcessThis article will explore the idea of "gamesmanship" in the criminal process, drawing on notions of fair play and sportsmanship. The first place that many people learn formal structures of rules, procedures, and norms of conduct is in sports. I am interested in examining how ideas of fairness, cheating, and gamesmanship in the sports context inform our approach to adversarial criminal procedural systems.
Professor Steve Koh
Columbia Law School
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10027
58
JoshuaKleinfeldNorthwestern
joshua.kleinfeld@northwestern.edu
TBDMonday onlyYYBlame, Mind, and Social Meaning: Why Mens Rea Matters to a ReconstructivistRetributivists and utilitarians can easily explain why mens rea matters in criminal law. But can a reconstructivist? That is, if the function of criminal law is to restitch a torn social fabric, to reaffirm shared norms in the wake of a crime, why care about the defendant's mental state? Why not execute he who drank from the sacred stream regardless of whether he knew it was sacred? This article argues that crime’s expressive content depends on mens rea: a predatory or indifferent mind is the ingredient that turns merely harmful or dangerous conduct into an attack on shared values.
59
SteveKohColumbiaskoh@law.columbia.eduYesNoneYYMediated Criminal ProcedureThis Article explores how criminal procedural rights (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) are being abridged in cross-border U.S. prosecutions. It considers how the political branches---as opposed to the judiciary---are policing the boundaries of such procedural safeguards.
60
Adam KolberBrooklynadam.kolber@brooklaw.eduNoNoneNYPunishment for the Greater GoodOn the merits of consequentialist punishment--a view that has fallen out of disfavor among punishment theorists in recent decades.
61
LeeKovarskyMarylandlkovarsky@law.umaryland.eduTBDNYYProsecutor MercyI explore the political viability, normative desirabiltiy, and legality of what I call "prosecutor mercy" - legislatively authorized decisions by prosecutors to reduce sentences of incarcerated inmates.
62
AlexKreitThomas Jeffersonakreit@tjsl.eduYNYYCriminal Law and the Bar ExamIn this essay, I consider criminal law through the lens of the bar exam. The impetus for this project is my work on a criminal law casebook for Wolters Kluwer's In Focus series. One of my goals in writing the casebook has been to ensure it includes coverage of all bar tested material. This has turned out to be easier said than done. As anyone who teaches criminal law knows, the law varies from state to state and in some instances the prevailing doctrine differs from both the common law and the Model Penal Code. The National Conference of Bar Examiners has never identified the criminal law rule(s) it expects applicants to know. Materials from bar preparation companies probably give us the best idea of what the bar examiners believe to be "the criminal law," but the rules covered in these materials are sometimes almost comically outdated. For example, according to bar preparation companies, bar examiners expect applicants to be intimately familiar with the common law definition of burglary, even though a number of the common law elements have been discarded in nearly every state. Why is the criminal law of the bar exam often so unlike criminal law as it exists in the real world? Is there a way to close the gap between the two?
Professor Youngjae Lee
Fordham University School of Law
150 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
63
DavidKwokHoustondkwok@uh.eduNNYYThe Repeat Victims of FraudUnlike individual victims, sophisticated entities such as companies and governmental bodies tend to be repeat victims of commercial fraud. I explore the distinct roles of these sophisticated victims, as they can help the judicial system better understand the costs and consequences of commercial fraud.
64
YoungjaeLeeFordhamylee@fordham.eduN
Mornings/early afternoons only, to be safe
YYReasonable Doubt and Implicit BiasThis very early draft considers whether the phenomenon of implicit bias suggests that jurors, in certain cases, ought to reduce their level of confidence about a defendant's guilt before voting to convict, and whether the reduction in the level of confidence, in certain cases, would be sufficient to mandate a vote to acquit despite their initial conclusion of guilt. Implications of the philosophical literature from epistemology on "higher order evidence" on this question are explored.
65
RobertLeider
George Mason, Scalia Law
rleider@gmu.eduYNoneNYModern Common Law of Crime
The paper challenges the claims that modern criminal law is primarily statutory and, because of overcriminalization, that prosecutors have wide discretion about how to form substantive criminal law. The paper argues that modern criminal law remains a common-law system in which checks and balances from various sources effectively constrain prosecutors into enforcing criminal law against defendants who have actually broken community norms. The paper also provides a normative defense for how a de facto system of unwritten criminal law comports with basic principles of legality.
66
GerryLeonardBoston Universitygleonard@bu.eduynyn
67
BenLevinColoradoben.levin@colorado.eduYNYYWage Theft Criminalization
This paper examines the drive to use criminal law to address wage theft and abuses in the workplace. Specifically, wage theft criminalization serves as a case study of a phenomenon that I call “carceral progressivism” – the continued reliance on incarceration and criminal law by progressive activists, academics, and politicians who are otherwise critical of mass incarceration. By focusing on wage theft, I stress the tension between abolitionist or radical critiques of the criminal system and progressive enthusiasm for governing through crime.
Professor Kay Levine
Emory University School of Law
1301 Clifton Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30322-2770
68
Kate LevineCardozoklevine02@mac.comYNYYPolice Prosecutions and Punitive Instincts Paper about procedural reforms to make it easier to punish, and punish more harshly, police officers who commit violent acts. I'll argue that these punitive reforms are out of sync with goals to reduce the criminal legal system's footprint, to systemically reform policing, and to acheive racial justice in the long term.
Professor Ken Levy
Louisiana State University
Paul M. Herbert Law Center
1 E. Campus Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-0106

69
KayLevineEmoryklevin2@emory.eduYeslikelyYRegulating Geography: the role of drug free zones in urban criminal justiceThis paper uses both quantitative and qualitative data to explain how/whether drug free school, residential and commercial zones work in an urban county in the southeastern united states.
70
KenLevyLSU Law klevy@lsu.eduNNYYResponsibility Skepticism Versus the Insanity DefenseOn the one hand, the insanity defense is typically thought to rest on the assumption that it is unjust to blame and punish people who are morally blameless. On the other hand, “responsibility skeptics” believe that we are *all* morally blameless because moral responsibility is either physically or metaphysically impossible. What, then, do responsibility skeptics think about the insanity defense? Should we get rid of it because it rests on a false premise? Or should we change its basis to something consistent with responsibility skepticism? I will try to answer these questions.
71
ChristopherLewisHarvard
Christopher_Lewis@fas.harvard.edu
YNoYN
72
RachaelLiebertNYUrachael.liebert@law.nyu.eduTBDNNN
73
WayneLoganFSUwlogan@law.fsu.edu yesYNYYGundy and the Future of Criminal Justice Delegation AuthoritySomething about Gundy
74
Cortney LollarKentuckycortney.lollar@uky.eduYNYYEliminating the Criminal Debt Exception for Debtors' PrisonsAn examination of why we still have a criminal debt exception when it comes to incarcerating people for failure to pay their financial obligations, which requires a close look at the parallel bankruptcy system and the similar failure to allow a discharge of criminal justice debt.
75
DavidLoukColumbia Law Schooldlouk@law.columbia.eduNNYYThe Audiences of Criminal LawEarly-stage project examining the various audiences of criminal statutes (citizens, juries, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc.) and the way the law communicates differently to these different audiences
76
JamesMacleodColumbia Law Schooljmacleod@law.columbia.eduYNYNN/AN/A
77
MichaelMannheimerNKU-Chasemannheimem1@nku.eduNNYYFraudulently Induced ConfessionsThis article will explore the question of what kinds of police deception in the interrogation room should result in exclusion of a resulting confession. It will posit that the concept of "coercion" is an ill fit for these types of cases, and that such confessions should be recognized, not as coerced, but as fraudulently induced. The article will argue that current case law is best explained by the following standard: when police deception causes the suspect to mistakenly conclude that the benefits of speaking outweigh the costs, and when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would come to the same conclusion, the confession should be deemed inadmissible.
Professor Richard McAdams
The University of Chicago Law School
1111 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
78
JaneilleMatthews
The University of the West Indies
janeille.matthews@cavehill.uwi.edu
TBDNPossiblyYIs the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Still a Fruit? A comparative analysis of the use of illegally obtained evidenceEarly-stage project investigating the use of illegally obtained evidence in the United Kingdom and the Anglophone Caribbean and the implications with respect to procedural justice. I expect to argue that although in jurisdictions with limited resources and increasing levels of organised crime it might be counterintuitive to limit police power, the Anglophone Caribbean should adopt the US approach to such evidence.
79
RichardMcAdamsChicagormcadams@uchicago.eduNoneYYTBA?
80
DanielMcConkieNorthern Illinois Univ. College of Lawmcconkie@niu.eduYNYYCriminal Justice CitizenshipBecause our criminal justice system is fundamentally democratic, it should reflect an ideal of citizenship that is equal, inclusive, participatory, and deliberative. The article applies this theory of citizenship to the courts.
Professor Ion Meyn
University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
81
GabeMendlowMichiganMendlow@umich.eduNNNN
82
IonMeynWisconsinmeyn@wisc.eduYTues pmYYJim Crow ProcedureFederal procedure was reformed between 1935-1944, during the height of Jim Crow. The article explores how the political and social context surrounding reform influenced its construction
Professor Eric Miller
Loyola Law School - Los Angeles
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
83
ColinMillerSouth Carolinamille933@law.sc.eduNNYY
The Right to an Implicit Bias Jury Instruction
Upon request by a nontestifying defendant, courts are required to give a “no adverse inference” jury instruction under the Fifth Amendment. Conversely, most courts have found that minority defendants are not entitled to an instruction advising jurors to avoid relying on implicit bias in reaching a decision. This article argues that the same analysis that requires “no adverse inference” instructions compels creation of a Sixth Amendment right to an implicit bias jury instruction.
Professor Rachel Moran
University of St. Thomas School of Law
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
84
EricMillerLoyola Los Angelesmillere@lls.eduYNoneYYCo-Dependency CourtsThis paper discusses the manner in which problem solving courts, which monitor the conditions of probation and parole for certain statuses of offender, allow judges to pursue disciplinary and punitive drug policies under the guise of progressive opposition to the war on drugs
85
Rachel MoranSt. Thomas (MN)rmoran@stthomas.eduN
Not after 2 pm on Tuesday
YesYesPolice as Public OfficialsThis paper will analyze the public official doctrine, its application to police officers, and its implications for police privacy claims.
86
RachelMoran
University of St. Thomas (MN)
rmoran@stthomas.eduN
Not Tuesday afternoon
YYPolice as Public OfficialsThis paper will examine the public official doctrines, whether they apply to police officers, and how those doctrines affect police privacy rights
Professor Brian Murray
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102
87
JameliaMorganUCONNjamelia.morgan@uconn.eduYESNNYConstructing Disorder, Reconstructing Publics: Race, Place, and Public Space in Disorderly ConductThis paper will examine disorderly conduct using an intersectional lens. I argue that policing disorderly conduct does more than regulate behavior, remove, and exclude bodies from public space: it constructs the notion of public space itself through defining and upholding racialized and gendered norms for who belongs in public spaces and what behaviors are permitted in those spaces.
88
BrianMurraySeton Hallmurrayb1@shu.eduN
Arriving Monday morning, prefer Monday afternoon or Tuesday presentation
NYRetributivism and Collateral Consequences or The Process Prevents ExpungementRetributivism and Collateral Consequences engages in an in-depth accounting of whether CCs can be justified under retributive theories. The Process Prevents Expungement evaluates how expungement procedure has not kept pace with substantive expungement reforms, and provides a theoretical basis for why that is the case. Both papers are part of a larger project.
89
JustinMurrayNew York Law Schooljumurray@gmail.comYNYYPolicing Criminal Procedure Error on AppealWe need more effective regulatory mechanisms to deter criminal procedure violations. The goal of this project is to propose one such mechanism: reversing criminal convictions (or sentences), despite the absence of prejudice to the particular defendant who seeks reversal, when reversal is needed to deter intentional criminal procedure errors, errors arising from negligence, or patterns of error cutting across multiple cases. This proposal builds upon an approach that federal and (some) state courts already use -- based on the Supreme Court's decision in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. -- in cases involving one important category of criminal procedure error: the failure of a judge to recuse him or her self in cases where a reasonable observer might question the judge's impartiality. This article will provide the first systematic examination of how the Liljeberg reversal rule works, arguing that the rule has been successful in its native doctrinal context (i.e. recusal errors) and should be used more broadly in other doctrinal context too.
90
LucilleNguyenN/Athelucenguyen@gmail.comYNNNN/AN/A
Professor Anna Offit
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law
P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
91
AnthonyO'RourkeSUNY Buffaloaorourke@buffalo.eduYNYY
Liability-Expanding Defense Arguments in Criminal Law
A short outline on criminal defense arguments that have the structural effect of expanding substantive criminal liability in future cases (categorical approach arguments in Johnson cases; line-drawing strategies more generally).
92
AnnaOffitSMUaco269@nyu.eduY
Mon & Tues 10am-4pm
YYRace-Conscious Jury SelectionThis paper will consider the implications of the trend toward race-conscious jury empanelment as a corrective to jury exclusion. It will examine the history and development of the Batson doctrine and draw on original empirical research on jury selection in the federal system.
93
NgoziOkidegbeCardozonco2112@columbia.eduYNNY‘When They Hear Us’: A Path Towards Radical Bail ReformI am at the exploratory stages of a paper criticizing the use of proprietary algorithms in bail hearings from a critical race theory perspective. My view is that open source algorithms might offer a solution to the problems posed by proprietary algorithms and be in line with racial justice aims.
Professor Mark Osler
University of St. Thomas School of Law
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
94
WillOrtmanWayne Statewortman@wayne.eduYNNYTBDUpdating the Confrontation Clause
Professor Lauren Ouziel
Temple University Beasley School of Law
Klein Hall, Room 602
1719 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122

95
MarkOslerSt. Thomas (MN)osle2680@stthomas.eduNoneYYPoking a Sharp Stick at Criminal Reform's Lack of AmbitionThere is a great danger that the First Step Act will be a last step in criminal reform at the federal level, even if there is a new administration in 2021. How can this lack of ambition be overcome? I have some thoughts on that.
96
ShaunOssei-OwusuPennoss@law.upenn.eduYNYYThe Right to Counsel and the Welfare StateThis paper examines the unexplored relationship between indigent defense policy and the trajectory of the American welfare state.
97
LaurenOuzielTemplelauren.ouziel@temple.eduY
may need to leave after morning panel Tues
YYProsecution in Public, Prosecution in Privatepaper examining the way criminal procedure apportions values of secrecy and transparency, and how, in a number of ways, this apportionment disserves the underlying goals these values purport to advance: accountability, investigative integrity, and protection of the presumption of innocence.
98
John RappaportChicagojrappaport@uchicago.eduNNYN
99
RafiReznikGeorgetownrr1107@georgetown.eduNNNY
Retributive Abolitionism
Arguing that prison abolition is compatible with retribution. Dissociating punitiveness from incarceration and explicitly espousing retribution would alleviate conceptual difficulties within the prison abolition framework, and provide a necessary avenue for the public condemnation of moral wrongs. The sound moral basis that prison abolition currently lacks and that retribution facilitates is grounded in the principle that crime is an act rather than a status. This same principle also grounds the increasing neighboring critique of ‘collateral consequences.’ Merging these two criminal justice conversations togethere stablishes a program of wholesale decarceration by de-collateralization: treating as punishment proper, all sanctions imposed by the state on individuals in response to committing public wrongs.
100
BrianRichardsonColumbiabmr2158@columbia.edu
Loading...