If you are with me that the best reading of Article III, § 2, clause 3 of the US Constitution denies to the federal courts the power to conduct a non-jury criminal trial (post of 1/11/15), then the question for both of us is whether that provision also makes federal plea bargains unconstitutional. At this time this is only a theoretical question, as the Supreme Court has resolutely resisted reading the Article III provision in its natural way. Were the Court, however, suddenly to see the light, perhaps by declaring federal bench trials to be unconstitutional, then the issue of plea bargaining would be brought front and center, and plea bargaining is a matter of immense practical importance. Guilty pleas now account for 97% of federal cases.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Plea Bargaining in Federal Court Is Unonstitutional
If you are with me that the best reading of Article III, § 2, clause 3 of the US Constitution denies to the federal courts the power to conduct a non-jury criminal trial (post of 1/11/15), then the question for both of us is whether that provision also makes federal plea bargains unconstitutional. At this time this is only a theoretical question, as the Supreme Court has resolutely resisted reading the Article III provision in its natural way. Were the Court, however, suddenly to see the light, perhaps by declaring federal bench trials to be unconstitutional, then the issue of plea bargaining would be brought front and center, and plea bargaining is a matter of immense practical importance. Guilty pleas now account for 97% of federal cases.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
More on the Waiver of Article III Requirements: Wellness International Network v. Sharif
My post of 1/11/15.
“Are Federal Bench Trials in Criminal Cases Constitutional?”, argued that the Article III jury trial requirement in
criminal cases is a matter of the power of the federal courts and cannot be
waived by the defendant. A similar issue
of Article III requirements, this time in a bankruptcy context, was just decided in favor of waiver by the Court.
Again practical considerations of court administration trumped the structural
provisions of Article III, if not in quite as clear and dramatic a way as in
the doctrine that the jury requirement is merely a waivable right.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Can we hope that God exists? If so, should we?
I do not believe that God exists, but I hope that I am
wrong. In fact, everyone should hope
that God exists: believers (perhaps with nagging doubts), agnostics, atheists,
and those who haven’t given the God question much thought. The evangelists of cross and crescent and
their antagonists, especially those atheists still called “new,” have had a
well-publicized, widely published, and mostly tiresome debate whether belief in
God is reasonable. Completely ignored is
a question on which even the most dogmatic theist and virulent atheist might possibly
agree: is it reasonable to hope that a powerful intelligence lovingly created
us and everything else? See my Hope to God
https://scribl.com/books/E9HZ8/hope-to-god
https://scribl.com/books/E9HZ8/hope-to-god
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)