This resource contains a statutory compilation and case law digest, including a summary of the foundational doctrine underlying forfeiture by wrongdoing. It also contains relevant federal case law.
Restitution and Asset Forfeiture: A Focus on Human Trafficking
Human trafficking is tantamount to modern slavery and is a crime with devastating consequences. This resource summarizes the restitution and asset forfeiture laws related to human trafficking in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and federal jurisdictions. An analysis of the laws was conducted, and summaries of the restitution and asset forfeiture laws are included within. The full text of these statutes is included, as well as the citation for the relevant human trafficking statute(s) for each jurisdiction.
Restitution-and-Asset-Forfeiture-A-Focus-on-Human-Trafficking
To Record or Not To Record: Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Police Response to Crimes of Violence Against Women
For a variety of reasons—officer safety, public accountability, evidence collection, and departmental transparency—an increasing number of police departments have adopted, or are considering adopting, the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs). While BWCs can provide helpful evidence in cases involving gender-based violence (GBV), their use may also adversely impact victim safety and privacy. This article discusses many of the issues law enforcement, prosecutors, and allied professionals must consider when BWCs are used in GBV investigations. The article describes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration – at the local, state, and federal levels – in order to develop effective BWC policies that address victim safety, privacy, and autonomy. The article also addresses issues such as deactivation of a BWC at appropriate points during the investigation; privacy and safety considerations; discovery, redaction, protective orders limiting dissemination; and requests under freedom of information or open records statutes.
Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Post-Trial DNA Testing in Osborne
On June 19, 2009, In District Attorney v. Osborne, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants do not have a federal due process right to post–trial DNA testing. This article gives an overview of the facts and impacts of the case. Osborne’s supporters argued that if evidence existed that could conclusively show whether or not a defendant committed the crime then it should be tested. But these arguments ignore the fact that Osborne’s trial counsel’s decision to not request more specific pre-trial DNA testing was to avoid further incrimination of Osborne. This case is a reminder that prosecutors should strive to have policies that are fair and open-minded and place the interests of justice ahead of a desire to simply fight to preserve all convictions.
Understanding_the_U.S._Supreme_Courts_Decision_on_Post-Trial_DNA_Testing_in_Osborne_Issue_2
Supreme Court Clarifies Miranda
On February 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Maryland v. Shatzer, in which it reinstated a defendant’s child abuse conviction and announced a new rule that permits the police to resume questioning of suspects (who had previously invoked their right to remain silent) 14 days after they’re released from police custody. This ruling expands the ability of law enforcement officers to conduct suspect interviews in ongoing investigations where the body of evidence continues to build over time. The facts of Shatzer exemplify that a victim’s disclosure of sexual abuse is often a process that takes time, and the facts of this case presented the Court with an opportunity to create a common sense rule that appropriately balances the constitutional rights of the accused with the need to hold offenders accountable and seek justice for victims of crime.
Miranda Under the Microscope Again
This article provides an overview of Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins, a case involving an individual’s waiver of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. The Court held that after properly administering the Miranda warning, the police did not need an express or implied waiver of rights before they interrogated the subject and that the suspect in this case failed to clearly invoke his right to remain silent by simply remaining mostly silent during the interrogation. The case doesn’t appear to drastically impact Miranda, but it does offer law enforcement additional guidance on when and how they can proceed with questioning suspects.
Supreme Court Continues to Expand the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause: Bullcoming v. New Mexico
This article provides an overview of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, a case holding that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the prosecution from introducing a forensic laboratory report through the testimony of an analyst who did not personally perform or observe the testing. The authors discuss the impact of the case on domestic violence prosecutions to the extent that it expands defendants’ rights under the Confrontation Clause in the area of required live testimony and appears to limit the prosecution’s ability to present physical evidence when laboratory analysis is involved.
Supreme Court Clarifies the “Ongoing Emergency” in Michigan v. Bryant
This article provides an overview of Michigan v. Bryant, a case involving the admissibility of a dying victim’s statements to responding police in view of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Court held that the statements were made to meet an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial, making them admissible under the principles of Crawford v. Washington. The authors conclude that Bryant gives criminal justice practitioners expanded guidance on what constitutes an ongoing emergency, which enhances the prosecution’s ability to prove a case when the victim is not available to testify.
Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Ongoing_Emergency_in_Michigan_v_Bryant_Issue_9
Routine Strip-Searches Upheld for Intake into Jail’s General Population
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court held that correctional institutions may conduct routine strip-searches of all detainees upon admittance to the general population of the institution, even those arrested for the most minor offenses. The decision also concluded that such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court’s decision did not address the question of whether such searches would be constitutionally justifiable without reasonable suspicion if the detainee were not to be admitted to general population, leaving open the possibility of limitations on such searches where alternatives to placement in the general population exist. This article reviews the facts of the case and analyzes the Court’s opinion. It highlights the need for clear legislative or regulatory guidance delineating the circumstances under which strip-searches may be conducted. The article emphasizes the need for a solution that will provide institutional security crucial to the safety of all inmates and staff, while minimizing the need to conduct searches that may traumatize detainees.
Routine_Strip_Searches_Upheld_for_Intake_into_Jails_General_Population_Issue_15
Supreme Court Upholds DNA Collection of Arrestees
In Maryland v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may obtain and test DNA samples of defendants arrested for violent crimes. This decision resolved conflicting holdings in state and federal courts and clarified that this procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also sanctioned the expanded use of arrestee DNA profiles to solve cold cases in which there is DNA evidence that can prove the identity of a perpetrator. This article reviews the case facts and its impact on DNA collection laws.
