Professor Traum Places Latest Article in the Florida Law Review

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum placed her latest article, "Using Outcomes to Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication," in the Florida Law Review.

The abstract for Professor Traum's article provides:  "The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Frye v. Missouri lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial regulation of guilty pleas that considers outcomes.  These cases confirm that courts enjoy robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. This Article traces these significant doctrinal shifts and argues that they supply both impetus and authority for trial courts to regulate guilty pleas by monitoring plea outcomes. This proposal builds on market-based concepts while strengthening the judicial role in safeguarding constitutional values. By monitoring outcomes, courts can detect and correct factors in the plea market, like prosecutorial overreaching and deficient counsel, which can distort the parties’ ability to negotiate fair results. Outcomes monitoring is justified for practical reasons because it builds on courts’ expertise and unique place in the plea markets, it can be implemented at the trial court level, it reinforces courts’ traditional sentencing authority, and it can prevent litigation of prejudicial ineffective assistance in post-conviction proceedings."

Professor Traum's Florida Law Review article follows three other Traum articles recently placed in Hastings Law Journal, Cardozo Law Review, and Maryland Law Review.  See Anne R. Traum, Mass Incarceration at Sentencing, 64 Hastings L.J. 423 (2013); Anne R. Traum, Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on Its Own Path, 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 491 (2011); and Anne R. Traum, Last Best Chance for the Great Writ: Equitable Tolling and Federal Habeas Corpus, 68 Md. L. Rev. 545 (2009)).

Congratulations, Anne! 

Professor Blakesley Publishes Latest Article in the Criminal Law Bulletin

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that Professor Chris Blakesley placed one of his new articles, "Law, Language, Crime, and Culture: The Value and Risks of Comparative Law," in volume 49 of the Criminal Law Bulletin (forthcoming 2013). The Criminal Law Bulletin is the number two ranked peer-reviewed journal in the area of comparative and international criminal law according to the Washington and Lee University School of Law Journal Rankings.

Professor Blakesley holds The Cobeaga Law Firm Professorship at Boyd School of Law. He received his J.D. from the University of Utah and his Master of Laws and his Doctorate (Doctor of the Science of Law) from Columbia University. He also received his M.A. in International Law & Diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and his B.A. from the University of Utah.

Professor Blakesley has written many books, including Terrorism And Anti-terrorism: A Normative And Practical Assessment (2006); Global Issues In Criminal Law (co-authored, Thomson West, 2007); The International Legal System: Cases and Materials (co-authored, Foundation Press 5th Ed. 2001 and earlier editions); Terrorism, Drugs, International Law And The Protection Of Human Liberty (1992) (Part of the Innovations In International Law Series, Developed and Run by Richard Falk, Princeton University); Louisiana And Comparative Family Law (a treatise, 1997); and Contemporary Family Law (co-authored three volume treatise of family law throughout the United States, 1988). Professor Blakesley's work has been cited by state supreme courts, federal courts and many nationally and internationally renowned scholars.

At Boyd, Professor Blakesley teaches courses in International Law, Comparative Law, Comparative Criminal Law, International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, Family Law, and Terrorism.

Public Interest Law Film Festival Begins Tomorrow

By Jeanne Price

The Boyd School of Law’s second annual Public Interest Law Film Festival begins tomorrow, September 13. This year’s festival features three films that highlight the role of lawyers who are committed to public service. Each of the three films examines the legitimacy of the justice system and the penalties it imposes through a different lens – the criminal justice system in Crime After Crime, policies on immigration in AbUSed: The Postville Raid, and tort reform in Hot Coffee.

The festival begins Thursday evening with a showing of Crime After Crime (winner of the Freedom of Expression Award from the National Board of Review and the Grand Prize at the San Antonio Film Festival). Filmmaker Yoav Potash will lead a discussion of the film following its showing.

Friday morning events include a discussion of the use of media in litigation, led by Boyd Professor Elizabeth MacDowell, and a showing of Hot Coffee, followed by a question and answer session facilitated by Boyd Professor Elaine Shoben. At lunch, a group of distinguished academics, legislators, and community activists convene to discuss the collateral consequences of criminal convictions.

On Friday afternoon Professor and Boyd alumna Angela Morrison leads a discussion following the showing of AbUSed: The Postville Raid.

The festival ends with a keynote speech by Justice Michael L. Douglas of the Nevada Supreme Court. Following Justice Douglas’ remarks, the Law School will host a reception in the Wiener-Rogers Law Library. All of the films celebrated in this year’s festival are part of the Law Library’s documentary film holdings, a collection of more than 2000 films that are used by faculty and students in teaching and scholarly activities.

The Law School is very grateful to the Festival's sponsors.

Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic to Host Panel Examining the Death Penalty

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that the Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic will host a panel entitled, "Nevada's Death Penalty: Can We Live Without It? The Future of the Death Penalty - Should It be Abolished?"

The panel, which was organized by the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and is co-sponsored by the Criminal Law Society, will be moderated by Professor Addie Rolnick (Boyd School of Law) and will include Howard Brooks (Clark County Public Defender), Alzora Jackson (Clark County Special Public Defender), Honorable Stephen Dahl (Retired Justice of the Peace, North Las Vegas Township), and Dan Edwards (Bishop at Episcopal Dioceses of Nevada).

The Panel will be held on September 24, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Thomas & Mack Moot Court Facility.

Boyd to Host Second Annual Public Interest Law Film Festival

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that it will be hosting the Second Annual Public Interest Law Film Festival on September 13 and 14, 2012.

This year's festival, the theme of which is "Legitimacy, Process, and Penalty," will feature three films, including Crime After Crime: The Fight to Free Debbie Peagler, Hot Coffee, and abUSed: The Postville Raid. Distinguished festival presenters include Yoav Potash, award-winning filmmaker; Barbara Buckley, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada; Professor Gabriel "Jack" Chin, UC Davis School of Law; and Justice Michael L. Douglas, Nevada Supreme Court.

The Second Annual Public Interest Law Film Festival will be held at Boyd School of Law's Thomas and Mack Moot Court Facility beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 13, 2012, and closing with a reception in the early evening of Friday, September 14, 2012. The Film Festival schedule is available here. Registration information is available here. Tax-deductible donation information is available here.

Boyd to Host Fourth Annual Southwest Criminal Law Conference

We are very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum has organized and will be hosting the Fourth Annual Southwest Criminal Law Conference on September 6-8, 2012, at Boyd.

During the conference, criminal law scholars from across the region will discuss works in progress and exchange ideas for further development of such works. The conference will begin with a dinner on the evening of Thursday, September 6. Participants will workshop papers with assigned commentators in 60 to 90 minute sessions on Friday, September 7, and during the morning of Saturday, September 8. The conference will conclude with a lunch on Saturday.

Past law school conference hosts have included the Universities of Arizona, Colorado, and Irvine/Chapman. Thank you, Anne, for bringing this great event to Boyd.

Professor Traum's Latest Article to Be Published in the Hastings Law Journal

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum's latest article will be published in Volume 64 of the Hastings Law Journal.

The abstract for Mass Incarceration at Sentencing provides: "Courts can address the problem of mass incarceration at sentencing. Although scholars suggest that the most effective response may be through policy and legislative reform, judicial consideration of mass incarceration at sentencing would provide an additional response that can largely be implemented without wholesale reform. Mass incarceration presents a difficult problem for courts because it is a systemic problem that harms people on several scales – individual, family and community, and the power of courts to address such broad harm is limited. This Article proposes that judges should consider mass incarceration, a systemic problem, in individual criminal cases at sentencing. Sentencing is well-suited to this purpose because it is a routine phase of a criminal case when courts have great flexibility to individualize punishment based on individual and systemic factors. In this phase, judicial discretion is at its highest, judges’ contact with defendants is most direct, and the broadest scope of information properly flows to the court. Mass incarceration can be viewed as a systemic concern that is relevant to both the defendant’s history and the traditional sentencing purposes, including the need to benefit public safety and to ensure that sentences are fair and just. Information about mass incarceration would enhance courts’ understanding of the impacts of sentencing on the defendant and others in the local community. This Article articulates how this can be accomplished in federal sentencing, and suggests doctrinal and practice changes that would enhance courts’ capacity to consider and mitigate the harms of mass incarceration in individual cases."

The article's full citation is: Anne R. Traum, Mass Incarceration at Sentencing, 64 Hastings L.J. __ (forthcoming 2013). Congratulations, Anne!

Professor Traum Publishes in Cardozo Law Review

Congratulations to Professor Anne Traum on the publication of her recent article in Volume 33 of the Cardozo Law Review.

The abstract for "Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on its Own Path" provides: "Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional issues (including due process) and criminal statutory interpretation. The Court has accorded agency deference on matters of agency expertise, which does not include interpretation of criminal law and convictions. And the Court has created generally applicable procedural protections in order to minimize court interference with substantive immigration policy. Guided by these core concepts, courts are poised to develop procedural protections for immigrants in removal proceedings that are tailored to the institutional interests at stake and protective of immigrants. By constitutionalizing immigration on its own path, courts may also avoid some of the pitfalls of a Sixth Amendment–based criminal-rights model."

The article's full text (Anne Traum, Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on Its Own Path, 33 CARDOZO L. REV. 491 (2011)) is available for download at UNLV's Scholarly Commons as well as SSRN.

Nevada Supreme Court Analyzes Statutory Definition of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Case

By Professor Mary Berkheiser

In the death penalty case of Ybarra v. State, 247 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2011), Ybarra challenged the district court’s finding that he was not mentally retarded and therefore was not categorically excluded from imposition of the death penalty. This was a case of first impression concerning the proper analysis to be performed under the statutory definition of mental retardation in NRS 174.098, which contains three components: (1) significant limitations in intellectual functioning, (2) significant limitations in adaptive functioning, and (3) age of onset.

The Court began by spelling out the standard of review. The determination whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded is based on factual conclusions but requires distinctively legal analysis to determine whether the elements of mental retardation have been proven; therefore, an appellate court reviews such a determination as a mixed question of fact and law. Applying that analysis, the appellate court gives deference to the district court’s factual findings, so long as those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, but the appellate court reviews the legal consequences of those factual findings de novo.