Race and Ethnicity week 7

8th amendment prohibits

excessive bail but does not guarantee an absolute right to bail in all cases 

• but there are still disparities in sentencing

The vera institution studies (1961-1964)

The manhattan bail project, run by the Vera institute of justice demonstrated that defendants released on their on recognizance appeared for trail rates comparable to those who posted bail- challenging the assumption that money secured appearance 

The bail reform act of 1966

congress passed the first major federal bail reform legislation, directing courts to favor the least reactive release conditions and establishing that pretrial release was the presumption- detention was exception- for non-capital cases 

The bail reform act of 1984

Congress reversed course, permitting preventive detention based on "dangerousness." Upheld in United States v. Salerno (1987), this shift gave prosecutors and judges far greater latitude to detain defendants pretrial — latitude that reform advocates argue has been applied unequally across race

How pretrial detention influences verdicts

 research consistently demonstrates that pretrial detention- independent of guilt or innocence- significantly increases the likelihood of conviction and incarceration at sentencing

Plea pressure

detained defendants are far more likely to accept plea deals- even when innocent to secure release, gain credit for time served, or avoid the risk of longer sentence

Impaired defense

detained defendants have severely limited ability to assist their attorneys, gather evidence, locate witnesses and present a credible case to the jury 

Jury perception

research suggests jurors who see defendants in jail clothing or who know they are detained may unconsciously assign  greater likelihood of guilt  

Lowenkamp, VanNostrand & Holsinger (2013)

This landmark study of over 150,000 cases found that defendants detained for the entire pretrial period were three times more likely to be sentenced to prison than similarly situated defendants who were released

• The effect held even after controlling for charge severity criminal history and demographics

Dobbie, Goldin and Yang (2013)

 random assignment of bail judges in Philadelphia and Miami as a natural experiment, this study found that pretrial detention reduced employment in the year following disposition and increased the probability of conviction by 13%

The right to counsel and public defense

the sixth amendment guarantees the right to counsel in criminal proceedings. But for much of American history, that right was largely theoretical for poor defendants — and poor defendants were disproportionately people of color

Powell v. Alabama(1932)

The "Scottsboro Boys" case. Nine young Black men, accused of raping two white women, were tried without meaningful counsel in Alabama. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause required states to provide counsel in capital cases where defendants could not afford an attorney.

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

The Court extended the right to counsel to all federal criminal cases, holding that the Sixth Amendment required the appointment of counsel for defendants who could not afford representation in federal proceedings.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Perhaps the most consequential right-to-counsel ruling. The Court unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel applies to state felony proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)

The Court extended Gideon to misdemeanor cases where  imprisonment is a possible penalty — ensuring that no person could be jailed without access to an attorney, regardless of the level of the offense

The voir Dire Process

”the process of questioning prospective jurors”, both attorneys on either side seek to identify and remove jurors perceived as unfavorable 

Documented patterns

Black prospective jurors are questioned more skeptically about their impartiality than white members

• Studies show that Black defendants tried by all-white juries are convicted at significantly higher rates

• Mock jury research documents that racially diverse juries deliberate longer, consider more evidence, and produce fewer wrongful convictions

Jury nullification

occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “no guilty” despite believing- or having strong reason to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense 

White nullification

white juries routinely acquittred white defendants who murder, lynched, or assaulted a black victims throughout the jim crow era- nullifing laws that technically applied to all persons

Black nullification debate

legal scholars Paul Butler (1995) sparked national debate by arguing that black jurors may be morally justified in acquitting black defendants of non-violent drug offense as a form of protest against unjust system

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)

Norris v. Alabama (1935)

Taylor v. Louisiana (1775)

Batson v. Kentucky