1

MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Pranathi Charasala

Chawkat

Mentorship

Period 5

Mentorship Annotated Bibliographies

ABRAMS, NORMAN. "Federal Criminal Law." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, edited by
Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, 2nd ed., vol. 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, pp. 982-
985. Gale Virtual Reference Library

In this article, the Abrams explains the phenomenon of the lack of cases that test the constitutionality

of recent federal criminal laws, such as activities that come under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO). The Supreme Court rarely reviews cases that question interpretations of these

new federal statutes because they raise issues of interpretation, and not because of a lack of cases. This

phenomenon might result in prosecutors bringing different cases to the Court or other federal courts

because a judge might approach issues of interpretation indifferently. The greater consequence, though, is

the effect this might have on Congress. This has influenced Congress to change the form and content of

new federal statutes, in order to keep them from reaching high courts.

Abrams is a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He has written

many books on the practice of federal law, such as Federal Criminal Law and its Enforcement and Anti-

terrorism and Criminal Enforcement. Contact information can be found on the university’s website.

Although updated in 2000, the source still holds insightful analysis on how the Court has acted when

RICO was first introduced in 1970. The author also predicts what this will mean for federal laws in the

future. Strictly an informative piece, Abrams only describes the manner in which federal judges have

acted upon RICO cases with little analysis. The article contains many cases that influenced judges’

decisions on these cases, such as Mistretta v. U.S and Grady v. Corbin. Information in this article can be
 2
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

corroborated elsewhere. For example, Adam Kurland, in his publication “The Guarantee Clause as a Basis

for Federal Prosecution of State and Local Officers” also mentions the difficulty of finding inadequate

practices when prosecuting federal cases. This article mentions how the Guarantee Clause promotes state

sovereignty, which makes it difficult for federal judges to interpret federal statutes. This article was

written for lawmakers and prosecutors. The ideas mentioned give insight into laws that will pass without

judicial opposition and how to prosecute violations of the constitutionality of them.

Anwar, Shamena, et al. “A Fair and Impartial Jury? The Role of Age in Jury Selection and
Trial Outcomes.” SSRN, Economic Research Initiatives at Duke, 2012.

It is well known that prosecutors will try to choose an older jury while the defense tries to

keep the younger jurors. This study researches jury bias by looking at a jury’s sentencing decision

through the potential perspectives that exist when considering the average age of the jury. The study

examines data collected from jury data in Florida. It looks at the differences in sentences decided by

an older jury versus a younger jury. The study finds that younger jurors will find for smaller

sentences, while older jurors will sentence more harshly and convict defendants more often. The

findings from this study are important because of what it could mean for fair jury trials, as well as

jury sentencing, in the U.S. It stresses the importance of having impartial, but also diverse, jurors.

The article was headed by Shamena Anwar, Patrik Bayer, and Randi Hjalmarsson. Anwar is

a professor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Bayer is an economic professor at Duke

University, and Hjalmarsson is an economic professor at the University of Gothenburg, making the

authors qualified to discuss how economic principles in juries and its impact on public policy.

Written less than ten years ago, the article is relevant on public policy and criminal justice

procedure. As a study, this paper contained conclusions that were only proved data that the authors

collected, therefore it is objective. The information in this study can be verified elsewhere. For
 3
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

example, “The Luck of the Draw: Using Random Case Assignment to Investigate Attorney Ability,”

by David Abrahms and Albert Yoon also examine how attorneys use peoples’ inherent biases to

compile juries, also stating that prosecutors try to put older jurors on the jury. The purpose of this

article is to inform legislators about the biases that juries have, and how they are being exploited.

The authors hope that extra measures can be taken to ensure that there is an impartial but also

diverse jury

Anwar, Shamena, et al. “The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials.” National Bureau of
Economic Research , Nber.org, 2010.

This study examines how jurors sentence based on a defendant’s race, as well as their own.

The researchers in this study took a group of white jurors and asked them to sentence black

defendants. This jury convicted those accused of a crime at an alarming amount and gave them

harsher sentences than white defendants. When only two African Americans were added to this jury,

though, the conviction rates dropped dramatically. After this change, white defendants and black

defendants were convicted at similar rates. In the United States, juries are not always diverse, most

of them comprised of a white majority. Due to the lack of diversity in juries, defendants, many of

them minorities, are being prosecuted at an alarming rate and are leading to an increasing prison

population.

Anwar and her colleagues are professors at social economics and public policy, permitting

them to discuss topics related to decision making and how decisions affect policy. Written ten years

ago, this paper is current on law procedure and criminal justice. This study is completely objective

because it only derives conclusions from the data the authors collected. Although the authors make

their conclusions under the assumption that a lower prison population is better for society, which is

their perspective, their opinion is relevant because the data they collected still concretely shows how
 4
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

prison populations are affected by race. Their data was not altered or affected by their perspectives,

therefore people could come to different conclusions from the data. The information in this study

could be verified elsewhere. For example, “Race and Criminal Justice” by Paul Butler also claims

that white juries negatively impact minority defendants because of higher conviction rates. The

purpose of this article was for it to be delivered to public policy advisers. The paper should surprise

legislators into changing policy so that juries are more diverse, in order to lower their state’s prison

populations.

BARACSKAY, DANIEL. “Bill of Rights.” Bill of Rights, First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2018.

This article describes the history of the Bill of Rights and the role it plays in the criminal justice

system. When the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were arguing over the ratification of the

Constitution, the Bill of Rights were added as an effort to ensure that it is passed. The Bill of Rights

includes the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. The majority of these amendments have been

incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures that in criminal procedure, people that are

accused of crimes do not lose their rights. Especially for the First Amendment, the article describes the

Supreme Court cases that decided for the amendment to be incorporated. For example, Lemon v.

Kurtzman, which established the separation of church and state. Initially the Bill of Rights only applied to

the federal government, but now has been incorporated to the states as well.

Baracskay has worked at the Cleveland State University in the Department of Political Science,

concentrating on public policy and public administration. Edited in 2018, the article is relevant on the

incorporation of the Bill of Rights over time. This article is strictly informative and provides no analysis

or opinions on issues of the freedom of speech and religion. The coverage can be considered both broad

and deep because it covers the broad topic of criminal justice with an attention to the incorporation

doctrine’s role in constitutional criminal law. The information in this article can be verified elsewhere. For
 5
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

example, in Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn’s publication “Establishment Clause (Separation of

Church and State),” the authors mention the establishment clause, which incorporated the separation of

church and state, which is also mentioned in Baracskay’s article. The purpose of the article is to inform

students of the importance of the Bill of Rights. The intent of this article is to reach law students who want

to pursue constitutional law.

Bornstein, Brian H. “Judges vs. Juries” Social Science Research for (and in) the courts, Court Review,
2005.

This article looks more at what juries and judges go through in their thought processes when

deciding a defendant’s sentence. Other social scientists collected data on the decision-making skills of

juries, which the author, Brian Bornstein gathered and analyzed. Bornstein used data on the opinions of

judges on juries and whether a judge’s decision on the defendant’s sentence would differ greatly from a

jury’s decision. The author concludes that juries and judges usually have agreement when it comes to

sentencing, but judges are considered to be harsher than juries in some cases. For example judges are less

likely to award more in civil cases, and are more likely to convict a defendant in some criminal trials.

Bornstein is qualified to discuss the decision-making of judges and juries because he has a Ph.D. in

psychology from the University of Pennsylvania, and has focused his research in the field of jury decision

making and the perceptions of justice. His contact information can be found in the article. Although the

article is over ten years old, the ideas are still relevant. The analysis can still be used today because it

analyzes the prejudices of judges and juries, and their trends in data from 1985 to 2005. From this data,

noticeable trends can be observed, predicting how juries and judges will decide on cases in the future. The

author also considers other viewpoints on the subject of decision-making skills of juries. For example, he

notices that other publications, like Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: Comparing Severity and

Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States by Nancy J. King and Roosevelt L. Nobel, claim that
 6
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

juries can be harsher than judges in their sentencing. The information in this article can be verified

elsewhere. For example, Decision Making by Juries and Judges: International Perspectives by Edith

Greene and Lawrence Wrightsman also claim that juries and judges decide similarly on criminal cases, but

that judges are more likely to convict while juries provide harsher sentences. The purpose of this article is

to provide judges with information about their possible prejudices and the capabilities of juries. For

example, the article states that judges are more likely to encounter social science issues like the objectivity

of judges.

BUTLER, PAUL. "Race and Criminal Justice." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, edited by
Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, 2nd ed., vol. 5, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, pp. 2087-
2089. Gale Virtual Reference Library.

This article explains the difficulties racial minorities face under the law when being prosecuted for a

crime. Racial minorities have long fought for equal protections under the Constitution, especially when it

comes to people accused of crimes. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as

prohibiting racial discrimination, there are still legal practices that are racially skewed. The article

highlights that criminal law is enforced by states through the federalism principle. It states important

cases such as Hodges v. U.S and Screws v. U.S that demonstrated how “equal protection under the law” is

uncertain when it comes to decisions made under the states. The article also states other cases that

support the claim that a person’s race can determine their future in the criminal justice system. Despite

constitutional challenges, the Court still allows law enforcement to consider someone’s race when

determining suspicion of activity

Butler is qualified to discuss criminal law because he is a former prosecutor and a law professor at

Georgetown University Law Center. Contact information can be found on the university’s website. His

work has been nationally praised and has won a NAACP award for his literary pieces. Although written

more than 10 years ago, this source is still relevant because the article includes information about
 7
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

interpretations of the equal protection clause, which are still used to determine decisions in criminal

cases. The coverage can be considered broad because it discusses the criminal justice system, but can also

be considered deep because it specifically discusses the role of race in criminal law. Although the author

heavily believes race is a factor in criminal law, he uses past Supreme Court and state court cases to

defend his claims. The information in this article can be verified elsewhere. For example, when the

author claims the system is not fair towards racial minorities and the poor, it can be corroborated by

David Cole in his publication No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System. His book claims that race- and class-based standards exist when determining sentences for those

accused of crimes. The purpose of this article is to inform people of the different interpretations of the

equal protection clause when prosecuting racial minorities. The audience this article is intended for are

law students and future public defenders and prosecutors. Butler intends this article to shed light on the

hidden truth of discrimination in the justice system.

Carrington, Melissa. “Applying Apprendi to Jury Sentencing: Why State Felony Jury
Sentencing Threatens the Right to a Jury Trial.” Illinois Law Review, 2011.
Recently, interest in the possible benefits and problems of jury sentencing has risen in the

legal world after a landmark case, Apprendi v. New Jersey, declared that only a jury can increase a

defendant’s sentence past the maximum. Carrington proposes that jury sentencing threatens a jury

trial, as outlined in the Sixth Amendment. Jury sentencing undermines this Constitutional right by

forcing defendants to take their chances with a judge’s sentence rather than a possibly prejudicial

and unpredictable jury. The author also describes how the five states that use jury sentencing,

Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia, go about using it in their criminal

justice system. Finally, the author proposes that the states that do use jury sentencing to rather adopt

an elective jury, and provide training or seminars to encourage consistency when sentencing.
 8
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Carrington is qualified to discuss the implications of jury sentencing because she is currently

an assistant United States attorney and has clerked for two District Court judges in Illinois. Written

in 2011, this study is currently on the topic of the criminal system. The author effectively evaluates

both views, the positive and negative sides, on jury sentencing. For example, the author addresses

opposing views by stating that jury sentencing seems to fulfill the purpose of the Sixth Amendment

by making the criminal system more democratic, later refuting that statement by claiming that jury

sentencing actually undermines the right to a jury trial. The information in this study can be

corroborated elsewhere. For example, Nancy J. King’s and Roosevelt L. Noble’s study, Felony Jury

Sentencing in Practice: A Three-State Study, also finds that jury sentencing may result in defendants

choosing a bench trial, a trail where a judge imposes penalties, because they fear juries will act

unpredictably. The purpose of this article is to persuade state officials to drop their practice of jury

sentencing, or to adopt other criminal justice procedures like sending jurors through training to

prevent prejudicial sentencing.

Cooper, Robert L. The Law of Possessions. Office of the Public Defender. 2008.

This source explores how a lawyer might navigate the Law of Possessions in Maryland. This law

defines how someone would be prosecuted if they were accused of possessing illegal paraphernalia. The

author, Robert Cooper, first outlines the law, then explains common misconceptions of the law. Each

section of the article explains different elements of the law, which are justified by past court cases

involving the possession of drugs or weapons. The elements include knowledge of the existence of drug

and weapon paraphernalia, one’s proximity to it, and possessory interest in the item. The source takes

apart these court cases and examines why the defendant in the case lost. The source also explains the Law
 9
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

of Possessions in the context of automobile cases. In automobile cases, the elements of proximity to the

vehicle are evaluated differently than if the court was evaluating the proximity to drugs and arms.

Cooper is an associate judge for the First District Court in Baltimore city, making him qualified to

discuss law practices. Although written in 2008, the source is still relevant because the Law of Possessions

the article is written about is still applicable today. This article is not an opinion, but a strictly objective

analysis of the law, only explaining the law’s interpretations in different court cases, which has influenced

how the law is applied today. The information presented in this article can be corroborated elsewhere. For

example, the author includes the different interpretations of the law in cases like Taylor v. State, which

can be corroborated by The Maryland Court of Appeals, which has released the same opinion by the

presiding judge in the case. The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze the Law of Possessions

for the benefit of defense lawyers. For example, the article explains how not to implicate one’s client for a

crime of possession, which can only help the defense’s argument in a trial.

FRASE, RICHARD S. "Criminal Justice System." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, edited by
Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, pp. 713-
717. Gale Virtual Reference Library

This article reviews procedures of the criminal justice system. In chronological order, the system

includes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and punishment; and usually ending

with rehabilitation, but many offenders find themselves back in prison. Each step, though, has problems

due to a lack of clarification of criminal law in the Constitution. Federal constitutional limitations are

not as strictly regulated due to principals such as federalism, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth

Amendment. Such limitations were especially clarified during the Warren Court in the 1960s. Due to the

vague nature of the criminal justice system, Americans must not stop trying to improve the system.

Richard Frase is a criminal law and criminal justice professor at the University of Minnesota. He has

written his book, Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System, explains the
 10
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

criminal system and its procedures. Contact information can be found on the university’s website.

Although written more than 10 years ago, the source is still relevant because it is written about the

criminal system during the Warren Court’s influence on criminal law. Although the article is written to

bring attention to problems in the system, the author provides evidence in the form of court cases to

show why the opinion is credible. The information in the article can be found elsewhere. For example,

the Bar Association of America corroborates Frase’s claims about problems in criminal procedure by

saying that federal judges’ decisions on such cases are indifferent. The source is written for criminal

justice policy makers. The article clearly defines problems and raised questions about the current

system, for the purpose of fixing it.

GUY PADRAIC HAMILTON-SMITH and MATT VOGEL, The Violence of Voicelessness: The Impact
of Felony Disenfranchisement on Recidivism, 22 La Raza L.J. 2015.

This article explains the relationship between felony disenfranchisement and their recidivism rate. In

2010 more than 5.3 million people did not have the right to vote due to a collateral consequence from

their felony convictions, stripping them of some rights including voting. This is not due to a provision in

the Constitution or because of any federal statute, but is administered through the state legislatures. Due

to a variation in each state’s legislature, disenfranchisement is imposed differently throughout the

country. Some states, like Vermont and Maine allow currently incarcerated prisoners to vote, while other

states like Florida refuse to give those who completed their sentences to wait years to vote, or not vote at

all. This article also explores how disenfranchisement is connected to the recidivism rate, meaning that

disenfranchisement is connected to how a former prisoner has a higher chance of going back to prison.

Hamilton-Smith has previously been published in University of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, and

Vogel has a PhD in sociology from the University at Albany. Written in 2012, this article is currently on

the topic of the relationship between disenfranchisement and recidivism. This article evaluates both sides

of the argument, writing how those on the right of the political spectrum are for disenfranchisement
 11
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

because their argument exists for security, and how those who commit crimes should not have the same

rights of those not incarcerated. The authors also say, though, how disenfranchisement violates the

Fourteenth Amendment because of the huge population of minorities that are refused this right. The

information in this article can be verified elsewhere. For example, in “Felon Disenfranchisement in the

United States: A Health Equity Perspective” by Johnathan Purtle, the author also discusses the rights

violation, due to a large number of the prison population being around 13% African American males. The

purpose of the article is to define a correlation between disenfranchisement and recidivism of those once

incarcerated. This article was written for lawmakers and those in state legislatures that might look at

addressing their prison population and reforming their current laws.

Hager, Eli. “When Juries Help Judge.” The Marshall Project, The Marshall Project, 13 Mar.
2015.

This article reports on a federal case in which a man was found guilty on charges of child

pornography, but instead of being charged with the twenty years the prosecution wanted, the judge

decided to poll the jury and survey them on what they personally though the man should receive.

The defendant ended up receiving only five years, which the prosecution is trying to argue as

impermissible. Although not jury sentencing, which is not permitted in federal cases not pertaining

to the death penalty, the judge’s decision to consider the jury’s thoughts on the case was troubling

from a legal point of view. The author claims that juries are not specially equipped to determine

sentencing, which means that only judges are qualified to determine penalties and the jury’s only job

is to determine guilt or innocence, Jury Sentencing in Non-Capital Cases: Comparing Severity and

Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States, studies Delaware’s capital cases, concluding that

juries are more likely to sentence someone to life rather that death. This article was written for

judges that might follow the journal, with the purpose of giving them the positives and negatives of

jury sentencing, or using a jury’s opinions to influence a judge’s sentencing.

 12
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Hager is a staff writer for the Marshall Project, a non-profit criminal justice journalism

organization. His writing has appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and was a

finalist for the Livingston Journalism award. His experience in reporting criminal justice issues

makes him qualified to discuss jury sentencing. Written in 2015, this article is current on issues

pertaining to the criminal justice system. Although the piece is opinionated against jury sentencing,

the author also includes statements from judges that support the case for jury sentencing. For

example, he uses the opinion of Judge Bennet, who says that jurors are capable of choosing

sentences, and therefore should have a say in sentencing procedures. The information in this source

can be corroborated elsewhere. For example, when the author says that a jury’s opinion when

sentencing leads to lenient sentences, Morris Hoffman’s The Case for Jury Sentencing, also

determined, through a study of jury practices, that juries were more inclined to sentence defendants

with shorter sentences that judges were inclined to in Alabama. This article was written for judges

who might consider using juries to influence their sentencing decisions by providing positives and

negatives of jury sentencing.

Hans, Valerie, et al. “The Death Penalty: Should the Judge or the Jury Decide Who
Dies?” SSRN, Cornell Law School, 2014.

This article analyzes Delaware cases from 1997-2007. Delaware initially had a jury

sentencing system, but changed to a judge sentencing system when dealing with death penalty cases.

The article explores the argument that judges are less susceptible to prejudice when it comes to the

race and gender of the defendant. The study finds that judges are more likely to sentence a defendant

to death, and that a victim’s gender increases the probability for the death penalty. The study also

finds that a black defendant that killed white victims was much more likely to get the death penalty

than a white defendant that killed black defendants. The article takes data from how juries would
 13
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

sentence defendants and how judges would, finding that juries were more likely to be lenient while

judges were not.

The authors, Valerie P. Hans, John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, Amelia Courtney Hritz,

Sheri Lynn Johnson, Caisa E. Royer, and Martin T. Wells are qualified to discuss court procedures

because they are all law professors at Cornell University, except Hans, or graduate students at

Cornell, including Royer and Hirtz. All of their contact information can be found on the SSRN

database. Although the article analyses data that is more than ten years old, the article provides

current analysis of data trends and predictions of how jury sentencing will change in the future, for it

was written in 2014. The authors’ analysis of the data is completely objective and only derives

conclusions from trends they see in their data. For example, they only predict that judges most likely

sentence defendants harsher than juries because juries only sentenced 2% of defendants convicted of

homicide with capital punishment, while judges sentenced 13%. In The Case for Jury Sentencing by

Morris Hoffman, the author finds that judges are also harsher defendants in Alabama, sentencing

defendants with the death penalty more often than juries, justifying the conclusion that juries

sentence defendants more leniently than judges. The purpose of this article is to provide data to

policy advisers. The article is appropriate for this purpose because politicians can use it if they want

to justify the establishment of a jury sentencing system in their state.

Hoffman, Morris B. “The Case for Jury Sentencing.” Scholarship.law.duke.edu, Duke Law

Journal, 2003.

This article analyses the aspects of jury sentencing and calls for the system to be brought

back to all the states. In the early colonial era, state charters used jury sentencing because of their

distrust for the judicial system, for judges were appointed to their positions through the English

monarchy. The article also makes a Constitutional case for jury sentencing. Miller suggests that the
 14
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

sixth amendment, the right to a jury trial, can truly only be fulfilled if the defendant is also sentenced

by the jury. The jury system of sentencing is also more democratic than a judge. The process of

having multiple people thoroughly weigh the evidence of the case and vote on the verdict ensures

that the outcome is justified through the eyes of the people. The article additionally examines how

susceptible judges are to factors such as the defendant’s race and gender. It makes the case the juries

are not more prejudicial than judges, but that judges can sentence defendants more harshly because

there are no checks and balances on his or her powers, unlike in a democratic jury.

Hoffman is qualified to discuss the topic of court procedures and the actions of judges

because the author himself is a District Judge in Colorado. Although the article is more than ten

years old, the ideas in the paper are still relevant because the majority of it is in the form of historical

research, analyzing why the jury sentencing system came to place during the colonial era. The

connections between jury sentencing in the colonial era and the modern ear can still be applied today

because it examines prejudice in the criminal system, which will always remain relevant. Although

the article actively advocates for jury sentencing, it also includes a rebuttal, claiming that juries will

also need limitations on their power, imposed through legislative action, as well as having judges

instead of juries impose probation sentences. The information can also be corroborated. For

example, The Origins of Felony Jury Sentencing in the United States by Nancy J. King also states

that jury sentencing arrived in the U.S due to mistrust of the judicial system. Directed at state

officials that would greatly consider the word of a judge, the purpose of this article is to advocate for

spreading jury trials among the states through legislative action.

Kamin, Sam, and Justin Marceau. “The Facts About Ring v. Arizona and the Jury's Role in Capital
Sentencing.” SSRN, 2012.
 15
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

This article describes the controversy over the jury’s role in sentencing, as determined by the US

Supreme Court case, Ring v. Arizona. This case applied a previous case, Apprendi v. New Jersey to

all capital cases. Ring posed the question of whether juries or judges had the right to examine the

facts of a case and determine the guilt of a death-row inmate. In Apprendi, the Court determined that

in any question of increasing a defendant’s prison sentence past the statutory maximum, facts must

be submitted to a jury and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By applying the decision of

Apprendi, the Supreme Court decided that in order for a defendant to be put to death, facts must be

found by a jury. The article analyses the impact of Ring on the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial,

concluding that the decision in this case is too vague, and therefore clear revision should be made to

the Eighth Amendment about capital trials including jury sentencing.

Kamin and Marceau are both qualified to discuss the legal implications of Supreme Court cases

because they are law professors at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Although

Apprendi and Ring were decided eight years before the article, written in 2012, this article is current

on criminal justice procedures and modern legal analysis of Ring and Apprendi. Although this article

states the opinions that the decision in Ring was too vague, the authors also address how others

might perceive it to be complete. For example, they cite Woodson v. North Carolina, which clearly

asserted that juries must go through a second level of inquiry if they are to find someone guilty on

death row, accepting the fact that other experts disagree that the decision in Ring is vague.

Information in this article can also be corroborated elsewhere. For example, Henry P. Monaghan’s

article, Constitutional Fact Review, also states that the law does not clearly give juries the right to

review facts in a case, which is what initially made Ring appealing to many experts. This article was
 16
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

written towards state legislatures and Congress with the hopes of redefining laws to include if juries

are allowed to rereview cases to find a harsher sentence.

Kang, Jerry, et al. “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom.” SSRN, UCLA Law Review, 2012.

This article discusses what should be done to curb implicit bias in the courthouse from the

jury to the judge. This study explores people’s biases on criminal defendants and discrimination in

the workplace. The article examines the difference in how civil and criminal trials are held, and what

a jury’s bias may be in these different circumstances. For example, in a criminal trial a jury may

consider the defendant’s race, while in civil cases a jury may be more inclined to vote against a

corporation. Finally the authors make suggestions for how to prevent bias in the courts. They suggest

that jurors should be educated on what implicit bias is, that prosecutors and defense attorneys should

pick a diverse jury, and improve the conditions in which these decisions are being made.

Jerry Kang, Judge Mark Bennett, Devon Carbado, Pam Casey, Nilanjana Dasgupta, David

Faigman, Rachel Godsil, Anthony G. Greenwald, Justin Levinson, and Jennifer Mnookin are

qualified to discuss courtroom procedure because they are all law professors at the University of

California, Los Angeles and Bennet is a federal court judge. Written less than ten years ago, this

article is relevant on criminal procedure and law practices. This article evaluates discrimination and

bias without including the authors’ perspectives, making it free from opinions. For example, when

the derive that racial bias exists within a jury on a criminal case, they made this conclusion only after

studying multiple diverse juries in many criminal trials. The information in this article can be

verified elsewhere. For example, “ (How) Does Unconscious Bias Matter?: Law, Politics, and Racial

Inequality” by Ralph Banks and Richard Thompson also agree state that implicit bias negatively

affects black defendants in criminal cases due to implicit racism, even when they have been

somewhat educated on bias in the courtroom. The purpose of this article was to educate judges and
 17
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

lawyers on the biases that all people have, which makes removing it from the courtroom almost

impossible. By providing solutions to decreasing implicit bias, the article is also targeted towards

legislators with the hopes of changing court procedure.

King, Nancy J. The Origins of Felony Jury Sentencing in the United States. 78 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
937, 2003.

This article tries to determine the origins of jury sentencing from when it was first seen in the

colonial era in the United States. The article tries to find the origin of it in Virginia and Kentucky,

and why it was rejected for use in Pennsylvania. In Virginia, jury sentencing was most likely used by

the strong political parties to influence the outcome of a case, for whereas a judge might be harder to

sway, juries were more susceptible to bribery. In Kentucky, jury sentencing was most likely used

because of a distrust of the judiciary, and due to settlement habits and one’s heritage. Due to

Pennsylvania’s high population of Quakers, and their coalition of enlightened reformers, they

refused to adopt jury sentencing, which is still not used in the state today.

King is a law professor at Vanderbilt University, making her qualified to discuss the

legality of jury sentencing from a historical point of view. Although written more than ten years ago,

the information in the article is still relevant because it only focuses on jury sentencing in the 18th

century and does not connect it to jury sentencing in the modern era. This article does not provide

opinions on whether jury sentencing should be implemented, for it only includes analysis of why

juries were used in the judicial system during the colonial era, describing it in chronological order.

The article is an account of a specific legislature that changed the state's criminal justice system. The

author’s data and descriptions of how jury sentencing is implemented in the six states that practice it,
 18
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

can also be found in Jenia Turner’s article, Jury Sentencing as a Democratic Practice, which

outlines how Virginia’s use of jury sentencing in drug offense cases is different from Kentucky’s use

of it, which King’s article also explores. The purpose of this article is to provide information to

lawmakers about the original intentions, of colonial state legislatures, of what a jury should be

allowed to do in the criminal system. The author hopes it will be helpful to know this information

because current legislatures may use it to determine if their practices are in accordance with what

their state constitutions allow.

King, Nancy, and Roosevelt Nobel. “Felony Jury Sentencing in Practice: A Three-State Study.”
Scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu, Vanderbilt Law Review, 2004.

This study analyses the practice of felony jury sentencing in capital cases for three states:

Kentucky, Virginia, and Arkansas. Data collected through interviews of judges, prosecutors, and

defenders as well as the states’ sentencing data, helped the authors to reach the conclusion that jury

sentencing might result in jurors agreeing to charge a defendant with a higher sentence than a judge.

The authors address how jury sentencing seems appealing due to its democratic nature, but is

actually protecting elected officials from possible blame and accountability by making the jury

solely responsible for a controversial sentence. Jury sentencing may also be praised because it is

used as a tool to discourage jury trials, accommodate elected judges, and please voters who advocate

for larger sentences for crimes. This article advocated for criminal reform in these three states and

removed the jury sentencing practice.

King and Nobel are both law professors at Vanderbilt University, making them qualified to

discuss criminal reform matters. Although written in 2004, the information in this article is still
 19
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

relevant because it shows how people tend to think similarly in various states, which tends to stay

the same, for jury sentencing has not changed in practice since its implementation in these three

states. Although an opinion, arguing against jury sentencing, it uses the opinions and data from

papers that had the opposite opinion. For example, it cites opinions from Morris Hoffman’s article,

The Case for Jury Sentencing, when addressing a counterclaim that some may say juries are more

capable than judges at determining guilt and penalties. The information can be verified elsewhere.

For example, when the authors describe what jury sentencing should be like in practice, like

exercising leniency and is more effective than bench sentencing, Adriaan Lanni’s study, Jury

Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Again?), also describes how jury

sentencing “is a more direct and more effective mechanism for expressing the recent populist and

retributive trends in criminal punishment.” The purpose of this article is to persuade judges and

prosecutors from Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky, to stop using jury sentencing because it does

not provide justice for defendants.

King, Nancy, and Roosevelt Nobel. “Jury Sentencing in Non-Capital Cases: Comparing Severity and
Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States.” SSRN, 31 Mar. 2005.

Many researchers have long championed the benefits of jury sentencing as being a

democratic process that, since jurors do not have to be worried about getting elected to their position,

is better for defendants because a jury can debate sentencing options and reach a reasonable

conclusion to a penalty, than a judge who does not have the option. This study challenges this

opinion by providing data on the severity and variance that judges and juries in Virginia and

Arkansas pose of a defendant’s sentence. For juries, the authors found that jurors were less

predictable and tended to be more severe in their punishments than judges after a bench trial. The
 20
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

study also finds that judges may tend to be more lenient and predictable because they are restricted

by state law, whereas juries do not face these restrictions.

King and Nobel are qualified to discuss criminal justice and the implications of jury

sentencing because they are both law professors at Vanderbilt University. Although written in 2005,

this article is important to study because it provides trends of how judges and juries have decided

cases over time, which can still be applied today. Although this article becomes opinionated against

using jury sentencing, it also provides opinions and interpretations of jury sentencing form experts

that advocate for it. For example, it addresses the merits of Morris Hoffman’s study, The Case for

Jury Sentencing, and Jenia Turner’s study, Jury Sentencing as a Democratic Practice, which both

describe jury sentencing as a championed democratic process. The information in this article can be

verified elsewhere. For example, when the article says that juries are not held to the same restrictions

as judges when sentencing, Stephanie Holder in her article “Survey, Criminal Procedure”, also finds

that juries are more varied and less predictable in their sentences because they are not held to the

same restrictions under the law like judges are. This article was written towards state legislatures that

might be considering a jury system, for the purpose of providing them basic information on the

difference in severity of juries and judges. Legislatures may have an interest in this knowledge if

they are trying to lower their prison populations by possibly implementing new criminal justice

practices.

Lillquist, Erik. “The Puzzling Return of Jury Sentencing: Misgivings About Apprendi.” SSRN, 2004.

This article analyses and predicts the implications of the Supreme Court decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, which gave juries more power in the sentencing process by saying that
 21
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

juries must find any facts that could be used to increase a defendant’s sentence. The author explains

how the Court’s decision in this case was strange because most experts can agree that the jury’s

power should be limited. Many people, though, have praised Apprendi because it promises to reduce

the prisoner population by thousands. Lillquist, though, makes the argument that Apprendi will

actually increase prison populations because it presents juries with multiple “types' ' of guilty

verdicts, which will result in more convicted defendants. For example, if they may feel a defendant

must go to prison, they might think he or she should not complete the statutory maximum, but still

sends them to jail.

Lillquist is qualified to discuss legal cases and the Supreme Court because he is a law

professor at the Seton Hill University School of Law. Although written in 2004, this article is still

important to study because it contains the predictions of how experts thought Apprendi would

change the legal system, which is helpful because experts can look at this study to see if their

predictions were right. Although opinionated against jury sentencing, this article also acknowledges

opposing viewpoints. For example, the author mentions the merit of opposing views by saying that

jury sentencing is appealing because some think people will be more lenient when sentencing

members of the community because. She also says that the trade-off, having more people convicted

for lower sentences, might be beneficial. The information in this article can be verified elsewhere.

For example, Lillquist says that the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi was strange because

courts usually decide that juries should not have too much power, which is corroborated by Jeffery

Standen’s article, The End of the Era of Sentencing Guidelines: Apprendi v. New Jersey, which

confirms that the decision in this case was strange because it leads to the end of the original
 22
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

sentencing guidelines that were established through other Supreme Court decisions. The purpose of

this article is to provide predictions on how Apprendi will change sentencing in criminal courts to

state legislators in order to persuade them not to adopt jury sentencing.

Mandiberg, Susan. “Why Sentencing by a Judge Fulfills the Right to Jury Trial: A Comparative Law
Look at Blakely and Booker.” SSRN, Lewis and Clark Law School, 2007.

This article analyses the effects and legality of jury sentencing, as outlined by Blakely v.

Washington and U.S v. Booker, both determine that juries must find additional facts that give cause

for the prosecution or judges to impose sentences higher than the statutory maximum. The author

examines the basis for the decisions in these Supreme Court cases. She finds that the right to a jury

trial is violated when judges are not given more power than juries. The purpose of the Sixth

Amendment is to check the powers of the judge, but it did not consider the powers of the juries. If

juries are given the power to decide sentences, then the judge cannot overrule the jurors when an

arbitrary or unusual sentence is issued.

Mandiberg is qualified to discuss the legality and decisions of the Supreme Court because of her

credentials as a law professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School. Although written more than ten years

ago, this article is still important to study because it explains the foundation for why jury sentencing is so

problematic for many experts. The author evaluated all sides to her argument. For example, she addresses

an opposing viewpoint by saying that other experts believe the decision in Booker and Blakely actually

fulfilled the Sixth Amendment, even though the author does not believe this argument, she includes it in

order to evaluate other opinions. The information in the source can be verified elsewhere. For example,

the author claims that sentencing guidelines are violated when a jury finds additional facts that could
 23
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

potentially increase a defendant’s sentence past the maximum, which is corroborated by Rachel Barkow,

Recharging the Jury: The Criminal Jury’s Constitutional role in an Era of Mandatory Sentencing, which

says that initially the guidelines stated that a judge used to hear additional facts in order to do this, but is

violated with the decision in Brooker and Blakely. Overall, this article was intended for state legislators in

order to possibly convince them that these Court decisions should be overturned through legislation.

MCGOVERN, GEOFF. “Lemon v. Kurtzman I.” First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee

State University, 2013.

This article summarizes the impact Lemon v. Kurtzman has had on the U.S’ doctrine of “separation

between church and state.” In the case, the state tried to give financial support to church-supported

schools that were struggling. The court rules such an intervention as a violation of the First Amendment

by “respecting” an establishment of religion. The decision in Lemon is an important Supreme Court case

because it incorporated this establishment clause to the states about religion in public schools and

government. This wall of separation established the Lemon test, which is a criteria courts use when

determining if the government has overstepped its bounds by practicing an over excessive amount of

religious interference. This article shows how the Supreme Court incorporates parts of the Bill of Rights

in cases that include a violation of the Constitution.

McGovern is qualified on the subject of constitutional theory. He is a lecturer of Politics and

Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University and studies at Harvard Law School for his degree. Written in

2013, this article is current on the topic of the separation of church and state, and the establishment

clause. This article is strictly an informative piece and does not provide any of the author’s own

analysis, other than the Court’s justices’ opinions from the cases. The article also does not provide the

author’s opinions, other than the justices’. The coverage can be considered broad and deep because it
 24
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

discusses the topic of incorporation of the First Amendment to the states, but specifically discusses one

Supreme Court case that serves as an example. The information in this article can be verified elsewhere.

For example, in Hana Ryman and Mark Alcorn’s article “The Separation Between Church and State,”

discusses how Thomas Jefferson fought to disestablish the Angelica church in Virginia, which first

stirred the discussion of the separation between church and state when the Constitution was being

drafted. This article included various cases that were brought to the Supreme Court because of an

excessive interference of religion, such as Everson v. Board of Education, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and

Lynch v. Donnelly. The purpose of this article is mainly to educate citizens on the establishment clause

and how public systems, like public schools, are against the use of religious intervention. This article is

also helpful towards judges that might have to use tests like the Lemon test in order to determine if an

action violates the First Amendment.

MONK, LINDA R. “Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement.” PBS, Public Broadcasting
Service, 2013.

This article explores how the due process clause and equal protection clause in the Fourteenth

Amendment have determined discrimination in the U.S’ history. The amendment guarantees that all

persons have equal protections under the law, but some laws do discriminate, such as on the basis of

race or sex. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court justified discrimination by saying

that facilities could be “separate but equal.” The equal protection clause also applies to illegal

immigrants as well as those convicted of crimes. In Plyler v. Doe, the Court said that undocumented

children could have access to public schools, but prisoners do not enjoy such rights. Disenfranchising

felons means that felons lose their right to vote after serving their sentences. The problem with this

provision is that a high number of those convicted are minorities.

 25
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Monk is a Harvard Law School graduate and author and journalist, as well as a constitutional

scholar. Her works include The Bill of Rights: The User’s Guide and The Words we Live By. Written in

2013, this article is relevant on the topic of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clause.

Although an opinion, the author also evaluates both sides of the argument for and against criminal

disenfranchisement. For example, she writes that some worry felons should not be given the right to

vote, but also evaluates how it can be considered discrimination because minorities make up a large

portion of the prison population. In the broad field of the criminal justice system, this article hones in on

the problems around criminal disenfranchisement. Information in this article can be verified elsewhere.

For example, in the American Law Yearbook’s publication “Due Process,” the authors also mention

how the equal protection clause is not always followed if the state can find meet their burden of proof,

for example in Plessy v. Ferguson. The purpose of this article is to educate lawmakers on the

consequences of felony disenfranchisement. For example, this article is helpful because it shows

representatives that such laws result in a large portion of minorities not being able to vote in elections

for their representatives.

Philippe, Arnaud, and Aurélie Ouss. “No Hatred or Malice, Fear or Affection': Media and
Sentencing.” University Of Chicago Press Journals, Journals.chicago.edu, 2017.

In this study jury bias is evaluated through attention to media. The researchers studied jury

bias when introduced to media coverage about the case they were trying. Although jurors are told

not to watch the news or consider other outside factors, the media can affect what occupies a juror’s

mind for a single day. The authors noticed that the media does not affect jurors during the other days

of the trial, but drastically affects their decision, and ultimately how they vote on the verdict, which

occurs on the last day of a criminal trial. The researchers also perform the experiment on judges.

When media coverage of crime increases, sentencing also increases on an average of three months
 26
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

for defendants. Judges were less prone to listening to media coverage and could sentence defendants

more efficiently than heavily biased juries. Finally, the authors purpose juries be given less power in

sentencing decisions.

Arnaud and Ouss are qualified to discuss criminal law and behavioral economics because

both are postdoctoral fellows at the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Toulouse School of

Economics. Written less than ten years ago, this article is still relevant in the discussion of jury bias

in court. This study is objective because they consider both arguments. For example, a counterclaim

the authors provide is that if jurors are prone to media coverage, then judges must also be. Instead of

just denouncing this claim and stating that judges are not affected, the researchers also consider

judges’ bias and administer the same experiment to them as well as juries. Although the study

suggests that judges do not consider media coverage, the authors still included a broad coverage of

the issue. The study is also accurate. For example, “ Media Influence on Courts: Evidence from Civil

Case Adjudication” by Caire Lim also finds that jurors are heavily influenced by media coverage in

civil courts. She suggests that since jurors are so vulnerable to outside influences, jurors should not

be allowed too much freedom when deciding punishment or sentences. The purpose of this study

was to inform legislators in the U.S of jury bias, in the hopes of removing jury sentencing and

giving judges more power over sentencing in criminal trials.

RE, RICHARD M., and CHRISTOPHER M. RE. "Voting and vice: criminal disenfranchisement and the
Reconstruction Amendments." Yale Law Journal, May 2012, p. 1584+. Gale in Context: Opposing
Viewpoints,

This paper evaluates the impact the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth, Fourteenth, and

Thirteenth Amendments, have had on felon disenfranchisement. Once these amendments were passed,

the Constitution facilitated the enfranchisement of African Americans, saying that voting cannot

discriminate on the basis of race. Many former slaves were compared to immoral criminals, giving state
 27
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

legislatures more reasons to keep African Americans from voting. The highly criticized Supreme Court

decision that said disenfranchisement is endorsed by the Constitution only applied to serious crimes.

This decision goes against how former felons are treated after their sentences have ended, implying that

removing voting rights from former prisoners for misdemeanors and other minor criminal offenses, may

be unconstitutional.

Richard M. Re is a law professor at the UCLA School of Law. His research mostly centers around

criminal procedure, federal courts, and constitutional law. Christopher M. Re is a lawyer for Steptoe &

Johnson LLP and was a law clerk for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He currently practices pro-

bono, advocating for voting rights and free speech. Written in 2012, this source is currently on the topic

of voting rights and sociology. The author provides arguments for both sides of the issue. For example,

when the authors write about the Supreme Court decision that said disenfranchisement is only applicable

to those who have committed serious crimes, the article also contains arguments for why this decision

was criticized by scholars and why it has also been praised. Coverage can be considered broad and deep

because it explores the broad topic of criminal justice, but specifically looks at disenfranchisement

through the historical lenses of the Reconstruction Amendments. The information in this article can be

verified elsewhere. For example, Lauren Handelsman’s article, “Giving the Barking Dog a Bite:

Challenging Felon Disenfranchisement Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” also mentioned the

Reconstruction Amendments, such as the amendments that support African Americans’ voting rights,

and how they do not support the constitutionality of disenfranchisement. The purpose of the paper was

to educate lawmakers on the constitutionality of the criminal system. The article is helpful for state

legislatures to understand whether their current criminal system is constitutional, as well as the

arguments for and against disenfranchisement in regards to the Reconstruction Amendments.

Roeder , Oliver. “Releasing Drug Offenders Won't End Mass Incarceration.” FiveThirtyEight,

FiveThirtyEight, 17 July 2015.
 28
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

This article makes the argument that releasing drug offenders will not significantly lower or

solve the United States’ mass incarceration problem. The author claims that even with releasing all

drug offenders on the state and federal level, non-violent and violent drug offenders will not bring

America’s prison populations to the same levels of other democratic countries, and the U.S will

actually still remain the world’s leader in incarceration. The author claims that criminal justice

reformers will have to focus their efforts more broadly to make a dent in the prison population. For

example, he advocates for looking into increasing crime rates and the severity of sentencing by

judges and prosecutors.

Roeder is qualified to discuss the ramifications of policy decisions, like releasing all drug

offenders, because he holds a Ph.D. in economics, and focused his research on game theory. His

contact information can be found in the article. Written in 2015, this article is still relevant on the

topic of criminal justice reform, and on how current prison populations would change. Although this

article makes the argument that releasing drug offenders will not drastically improve the criminal

system, his opinion is still relevant because it forces politicians to look into other ways of improving

the system. All of the author’s conclusions can also be verified by reliable sources. For example,

when he says that releasing drug offenders will not end mass incarceration, his conclusion is

corroborated by the International Centre for Prison Studies and the Bureau of Prisons, which say if

those incarcerated for drug charges were released, the incarceration rate for the U.S would only drop

from 725 to 625 inmates for a population of 100,000, with the U.S still remaining at the top for mass

incarceration and still 100 inmates away Turkmenistan’s prison population. The purpose of this

article is to urge policy makers to broaden their focus on other criminal justice populations, like the

actions of judges and prosecutors, and lowering sentences for defendants because releasing drug

offenders will not change the United States’ mass incarceration problem.
 29
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Rossmo, Kim. “Criminal Investigative Failures.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service,

Department of Justice, Sept. 2006.

Criminal investigative failures may have serious consequences in the criminal justice system. This

article explores what might cause crime investigations, or a criminal prosecution, to imprison an innocent

person. There is no sure way to solve this problem, but this article explores some possibilities, grouping

them into areas of cognitive biases, probability errors, and organizational traps. Cognitive biases include

how an individual’s perspective on the world might affect their mindsets. These biases may lead to

unwanted consequences when it involves two people. Probability errors often may happen when profiling

criminal suspects. This occurs when police officers consider the probability one person is committing a

crime when compared to another. Organizational traps occur when bureaucracy disrupts an effort to

prosecute the right person.

Dr. Rossmo is the university Endowed Chair in Criminology and the Director of the Center for

Geospatial Intelligence and Investigation in the Department of Criminal Justice at Texas State University.

His information can be found on the university website. Although written in 2006, this source is still

relevant because it discusses the importance of how common errors in the criminal justice system pose a

threat to people who find themselves in the system. This topic will always be relevant because cognitive

biases, probability errors, and organizational traps will always exist in the system. Although this source

strongly advocates for more careful investigations, the author still presents a rational argument. For

example, the article contains examples such as the 1950 Monaco Grand Prix. The author uses this

example, of how a driver’s method driving was connected to their cognitive function, to link to his own

research of cognitive bias. The driver unexpectedly avoided a dangerous turn without knowing what was

ahead, proving that intuition plays a part in one’s actions. The information obtained in the source can be

verified elsewhere. For example, the author says that individual’s biases come from the way one’s mind

filters information, which can be corroborated by the Central intelligence agency’s article, Psychology of
 30
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Intelligence Analysis, by R.J Heuer, which also mentions the importance of staying objective when

investigating. The purpose of this article is to warn investigative agencies of common mistakes when

prosecuting suspects.

Russell, Sarah French. “Jury Sentencing and Juveniles: Eighth Amendment Limits and Sixth
Amendment Rights.” SSRN, Boston College Law Review, 2015.

In this article, the author analyzes whether the jury sentencing practice if applied to

sentencing juveniles, is fair and Constitutional. The Supreme Court decided in Miller v. Alabama

that a juvenile cannot be held in life-without-parole sentences because of its violation of the Eighth

Amendment to a reasonable prison sentence or punishment. This Court decision brought up

questions like if a judge can determine if a juvenile can die in prison. For this to happen, the judge

will have to find facts, by themselves, in order to increase the sentence past the maximum. This

author, though, speaks about how juries must be the ones to find facts in order to increase a

defendant’s sentence past the maximum because it fulfills one’s right to a jury trial as well as the

Eight Amendment in a juvenile and regular criminal case.

Russell is qualified to discuss the juvenile criminal justice system because of her experience

as a law professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law. Written in 2015, this article is

currently on the criminal justice system. Although this article is opinionated for jury sentencing, she

also addresses other expert’s opinions by saying that juries are also used to check the judges’ power,

therefore she addresses that it might not make sense to give juries more power than judges. The

article is also accurate. For example, the author says that juries may be given more power than

judges when it comes to sentencing, which is corroborated by Sam Kamin and Justin Marceau in
 31
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

their article The Facts about Ring v. Arizona and the Jury’s Role in Capital Sentencing, also states

that it is surprising that juries are given increasingly more power because it undermines the role of

the judges in sentencing. The purpose of this article is to inform state legislators that they must also

keep in mind the fate of juveniles in the criminal system, which would be better if juries were

allowed to choose the penalties for juveniles.

SCHWARTZ, HERMAN. "Criminal Justice and Technology." Encyclopedia of the American

Constitution, edited by Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Macmillan
Reference USA, 2000, pp. 711-713. Gale Virtual Reference Library.

This article poses an important question about the role of technology in criminal justice. Today,

national security has led to the question of whether new technologies have invaded individual security

under the Constitution. In the past, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment as denying

constitutional protection against devices that do not physically trespass. However, the Court has changed

its stance constantly, giving more freedom to authorities to use more invasive technologies. The Court

has been resistant to imposing any constitutional controls on the use of technological advancements, for

the problem before the Court can be difficult if someone accused of a crime goes free because

authorities have used unconstitutional methods. Due to the indifferent opinions of courts around the

country, the author proposes a constitutional theory, stating that there will be little control around the use

of invasive technology.

Schwartz is a law professor at the American University Washington College of Law. He has

written books on prison conditions and constitutional theory. Contact information can be found on the

university’s website. Although written over ten years ago, the article is still relevant because it poses a

question of how the Court’s positions on invasive technologies have changed over time, and will

continue to change in the future. Although an opinion, the article still evaluated both sides of the
 32
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

argument. For example, the author talks about how some invasive technology might be needed or useful

when trying to rightly convict a criminal. Information in the article can be corroborated by other credible

sources. For example, the author raises the ethical issues of technology in police investigation. This can

be corroborated by Gary T. Marx in his publication, Undercover Police Surveillance in America, which

explores how far the police can go when investigating people for crimes.

Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. “The Effects of Pretrial
Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review. Law and Human Behavior.” Law and
Human Behavior, American Psychology-Law, 1999.

In this study, the researchers conducted a large meta analysis of 44 different studies on how

pretrial publicity affects jury verdicts. Jurors exposed to negative coverage about defendants were

more likely to convict while jurors exposed to positive coverage found not-guilty verdicts. The study

examines how the length between media coverage airing and when the trial ended, contributed to the

verdict. The researchers also look at how the kind of coverage affects jurors. For example, they

assess how if the coverage included crimes of murder or sexual assult and how they contributed to

pretrial biases even more than other types of media coverage.

Steblay, Besirevic, and Fulero are qualified to discuss juror bias because they are psychology

professors at Augsburg College and Sinclaire college. Although written more than ten years ago, this

article is still relevant because it provides insight into how jury bias was tackled in the past. For

example, studies like this encourage implementing programs that teach jurors about implicit bias,

which is taught to many jurors through video lessons. This article does not include the authors’

perspectives. The researchers’ findings are strictly through a large meta analysis, encompassing

many viewpoints and providing conclusions only after reviewing all of the data. This study is also

accurate. For example, “Crime, punishment, and politics: an analysis of political cycles in criminal

sentencing” by Carlos Berdej´o and Noam Yuchtman also found that media coverage, like politics,
 33
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

affects a jury’s verdict even in 2010. The purpose of this study was to find if juries could be immune

to outside factors like the media. After finding that jurors vulnerable to these factors, unlike judges,

they ask legislators to curb bias in the court by taking precautions like presenting lessons on implicit

bias.

STEIKER, CAROL S. "Criminal Justice and Due Process." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution,
edited by Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000,
pp. 709-711. Gale Virtual Reference Library

This article explores the role of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ role in police procedure.

Almost every provision of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated in almost all of the states, limiting

searches and seizures, establishing the right to not self-incriminate, the dual jeopardy clause, and the

cruel and unusual punishment clause. Although much of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated, the

Court has also provided some exceptions to the trend. For example, the grand jury clause was never

incorporated, even though it has been interpreted as a mandatory step when sentencing someone accused

of a crime. Due process has also become vague during recent years. The Supreme Court and other

federal courts are treating claims of inadequate procedures the same in criminal and civil cases.

Steiker is a law professor at Harvard Law School and specializes in due process and the broad field

of criminal justice. Contact information can be found on the university’s website. Although written more

than ten years ago, this article is still relevant on the topic of due process because it predicts how the

Court will incorporate the Bill of Rights into criminal procedure in the future. The author gives insight

on how courts were ruling at the time and how they have changed in the last ten years. The author

provides analysis on the Court’s various rulings on cases involving due process, such as County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, which involved a high-speed police chase and the Court found a violation of due

process. The author provides her opinion on how the court should not have found this as a violation by

analyzing other cases like Medina v. California. Information in the article can be corroborated
 34
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

elsewhere. For example, the author mentions how due process has changed in currently, which can be

verified in “Bill of Rights Modern Application,” by Akhil Amar, which says the incorporation of the Bill

of Rights in criminal justice has changed in more modern times. The purpose of the article is to provide

an analysis of the incorporation doctrine in criminal justice. Defense lawyers can use the information in

this article to better articulate their cases. This information can help lawyers understand how due process

has changed how courts will most likely rule to claims of inadequacy.

Turner, Jenia. “Jury Sentencing as a Democratic Practice.” SSRN, Virginia Law Review, 2003.

This article addresses the reasons for why the criminal justice system should use jury

sentencing. The author makes the case for jury sentencing by looking at its impact from a historical

perspective from colonial times to modern practices. Next, the article addresses the democratic

theory behind juries, arguing that since juries are democratic, it fulfills the Sixth Amendment right

to a jury trial. The author also claims that juries are more capable, like judges, of choosing one’s

penalties, as well as determining their guilt, because people are more inclined to choose the proper

penalty for a member of their community or peer. Juries are also considered to be equal to the

abilities of judges. The last part of the article proposes a plan to use juries by keeping its

democratic principles and while maintaining its efficiency and uniformity.

Turner is a Lecturer in Law at University of Chicago making her qualified to discuss jury

sentencing and criminal justice. Although written more than ten years ago, the information is still

relevant because the practices of juries have not changed since the ratification of the Constitution,

which makes the analysis of modern legal practices and colonial practices still pertinent. Although

an opinion, the author’s opinion is corroborated by other sources. For example, when she claims
 35
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

that people are dissatisfied with the sentencing of judges, her claims are backed by the U.S Bureau

of Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, through

opinion polls. Her opinion is valuable when evaluating the efficiency of jury sentencing. Turner’s

article is useful for policy advisors and judges that might look at implementing jury sentencing or

considering a jury’s opinions when evaluating sentencing.

Viscusi, William. “Jurors, Judges, and the Mistreatment of Risk by the Courts.” The Journal of
Legal Studies, 2001.

This study analyzes a jury’s ability to make decisions when given a low amount of

information and facts. This is called risk evaluation, or how well a jury can manage risk. The authors

suggest that these risk beliefs can be biased, making the outcome and verdict riddled with error

because of a jury’s inability to evaluate the facts available. Moreover, these errors can be predicted.

For example, when controlling the case and facts that jurors were exposed to, the researchers could

predict how they would assess the facts, and therefore could predict the outcome. The researchers

also evaluate the rationality of jurors. They noticed that jurors do not make their decisions in

accordance with courtroom procedure. For example, when asked to not consider a piece of testimony

by the judge, the jurors still tend to take such statements into consideration when deciding the

verdict. Overall, judges are not as prone to making poor risk assessments and can follow court

procedure.

The author, Viscusi, is certified to discuss juror bias and risk management due to his

credentials as an economist specializing in uncertainty and risk. Although written more than ten

years ago, this article is still relevant because it still proves useful. For example, the study includes

tests that researchers in the future can use to assess jury rationality. To cover both sides of the

argument, this author also covers bias in judges. For example, risk management in judges was done
 36
MENTORSHIP ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

by administering the same tests used on juries. Although the author proved that judges are less prone

to making errors when sentencing, he still tackled bias from both sides of the sentencing process.

This study can be verified elsewhere. For example, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision

under Risk” by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, also find that jurors are more prone to

making errors when given limited amounts of information, while judges remain level-headed

without incorporating their own biases when faced with this lack of information. The purpose of this

study was to show legislators that jurors are not as democratic as they seem, for jurors are

overwhelmingly driven by bias and make incorrect decisions when compared to judges. He hopes

that measures will be taken to make sure jurors are provided all the facts they need to deliver the

right verdict.