Articles Posted in Up Periscope

Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases

Sonja B. Starr

University of Michigan Law School
August 29, 2012
University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper

Abstract:
This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps.

h/t Prof. Berman.

Several items of interest.

Army Times reports:  The first female soldier to flee the U.S. military for Canada to avoid the war in Iraq has been ordered deported, a spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign said Thursday.

On the home grown terrorism front Air Force Times reports: 

h/t Prof. Berman.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/08/what-should-a-registered-sex-offender-do-when-running-from-a-hurricane.html

I have already posted about IAC prior to trial in connection with GP’s.

Here’s a case, Ostrander v. Green, 46 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 1995) – from the Fourth no less — that is very interesting because it makes clear there is a different standard of review that Strickland.

In its first opinion, the district court applied the wrong legal standard to Ostrander’s ineffective assistance claim. It used the Strickland v. Washington[, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),] test instead of the more specific Hill v. Lockhart[, 474 U.S. 52 (1985),] standard for guilty pleas induced by ineffective assistance. There is a significant difference between the tests. Under Strickland, the defendant shows prejudice if, but for counsel’s poor performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the entire proceeding would have been different. Under Hill, the defendant must show merely that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

The Ottawa Citizen reports on a new publication.  The title of the new piece is, Former Office ‘amazed’ he stayed sane during court martial.

Former infantry officer Robert Semrau, who was dismissed from the Canadian Forces for shooting a severely wounded Taliban insurgent on an Afghan battlefield, has ended a two-year silence with the publication of a new book.

The book, The Taliban Don’t Wave, attempts to place the controversial events of Oct. 19, 2008, into a broader context. Slated to be published later this month, the 312-page book details the stress, horrors and heroics of Semrau’s four-month tour of duty in Afghanistan, which ended with his arrest on a charge of second-degree murder.

Proposed 18 USC § 3014, Duty to Disclose Favorable Information and Commentary

Many recent cases have exposed the fact that federal prosecutors, whether through negligence or by design, all too often fail to abide by their constitutional duty to disclose information favorable to the defendant. To help ensure fairness in federal criminal proceedings, the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has endorsed model legislation drafted by NACDL’s Discovery Reform Task Force that would require the government to disclose all information favorable to the accused in relation to any issue to be determined in a federal criminal case.

• Read the combined legislation and commentary. (PDF)

Here is an interesting post from one of my favorite sites – federalevidence.com

Testimony by arresting officer from defendant’s suppression hearing (regarding what the officer saw as the only witness to the defendant’s confession to the charged crime) should not have been admitted as FRE 804(b)(1) former testimony in defendant’s subsequent drug distribution conspiracy trial; the defense did not have a similar motive in questioning the officer during the suppression hearing (e.g., as to show the alleged confession was not voluntary and therefore inadmissible), as the defendant would have during the trial on the merits (in examining the officer about the substance of the defendant’s alleged confessional statements), in United States v. Duenas, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2012) (Nos. 09-10492, 09-10496).

This case focuses on the issue of counsel’s motive in confrontation at a prior hearing.  I’m not so sure that this case helps exclude prior testimony from an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation, but . . .

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/08/17/teaching-and-learning-about-united-states-v-alvarez-the-stolen-valor-act-casehttp://verdict.justia.com/2012/08/17/teaching-and-learning-about-united-states-v-alvarez-the-stolen-valor-act-case

Deciding what to advise an accused about deportation or sex offender registration is easy (isn’t it).  But,

Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, might lead to a different conclusion.

Justia.com Opinion Summary: Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras and a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding him removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. At issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether Petitioner’s conviction under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice qualified as an "aggravated felony" under the modified categorical approach as explained in the Court’s recent en banc decision in United Sates v. Aguila-Montes de Oca. The Court granted the petition, concluding that Petitioner’s Article 92 conviction was not an aggravated felony and Petitioner was therefore not removable. Remanded with instructions to vacate the removal order against Petitioner.

1.  None of the Supreme Court Justices Has Battle Experience, Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic.

This is the first of a two-part series on the Supreme Court and the military. Today’s article focuses on the military history of the men who later became justices. Part II will focus on the disconnect between the current Court and the American war effort.

2.  Why Don’t the Justices Ever Visit Military Hospitals?  Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic.