Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
Introduction: Angles Of The Right To Counsel In Civil Cases Debate: Formalism, Immigration, Reviewability, And Empiricism
No full textGiven the recent celebrations of Gideon v. Wainwright\u27s 5 0 th anniversary,\u27 it is most appropriate that this Symposium issue focuses on the civil right to counsel. While Gideon was only about the right to counsel in criminal cases, many of the events and articles marking the anniversary discussed the interplay between criminal and civil cases,2 even reaching the front page of the New York Times 3 and various radio shows. 4 Yet historically, criminal and civil cases have rarely been discussed simultaneously
Does Relisha Rudd\u27s Mother Deserve To Be Reunited With Her Three Sons in Foster Care?
No full textThe Unreviewable Irredeemable Child: Why The District of Columbia Needs Reverse Waiver
No full textIn 2005 the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that adult criminal courts prosecuted 23,000 cases involving defendants under the age of eighteen nationwide. 2 This means that those defendants faced conviction and sentencing in adult courts. Transfer of those under eighteen into adult criminal court has become the states\u27 first line of defense in the fight against youth crime. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have cast doubt on the wisdom, and even the constitutionality of that approach. Roper v. Simmons held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for anyone under eighteen years of age. 3 Graham v. Florida held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a non-homicidal non-adult offender. 4 Most recently, JD.B. v. North Carolina held that a child\u27s age must be considered in determining whether the accused understands he or she is in custody.5 The court has begun to acknowledge that age does matter, even when the crimes have been violent
Access To Counsel In Removal Proceedings: A Case Study For Exploring The Legal and Societal Imperative To Expand The Civil Right To Counsel
No full textOf the approximately 400,000 immigration cases pending before federal immigration courts across the country,\u27 approximately fifty percent involve pro se respondents.2 Although empirical evidence shows that a foreign national\u27s chances of receiving a favorable ruling doubles when an attorney represents him or her in removal proceedings, a unique confluence of history, legal tradition and policy climate have restricted immigrants\u27 access to counsel to a ten-day window in which the immigrant may seek representation of his or her own choosing at no expense to the government. Although removal proceedings are, by definition, civil proceedings, they nevertheless involve physical detention and the possibility of permanent removal from the United States. These circumstances make the immigration system a unique case study for exploration of the civil right to counsel
Expanding The Civil Privilege Of Being Represented By Counsel Through The Presumed Prejudice Doctrine
No full textOn the fiftieth anniversary of Gideon v Wainwright,\u27 many scholars are examining 2 the promise to not ration justice 3 by requiring counsel to be appointed for the indigent for State crimes. 4 Yet, other scholars are trying to expand Gideon\u27s promise to all civil law matters,5 including immigration. Providing free appointed immigration counsel for representation in secretive 7 civil immigration removal proceedings would be ideal. However, for respondents who are subjected to the mandatory deportation consequences of their *9. convictions, immigration representation is impractical and serves little purpose.\u27 0 A better approach is to have criminal counsel simultaneously provide immigration representation by creating a record of conviction to avoid removal proceedings in their entirety
From Turkey Trot to Twitter: Policing Puberty, Purity, and Sex-Positivity
No full textFor over one hundred years, American social structures have largely embraced two central principles—the innocence of children and the omniscience of adults. But as we now know from behavioral and development experts, adolescents—neither children nor adults—challenge such simplistic categories. In resisting binaries, adolescents represent a threat to the standard world order. But rather than simply accepting the fluid nature of adolescents and adolescence, American adults continually try to manage, regulate and control teens in ways that deny their agency, encroach upon their personhood, and impede social change. From outward appearance, to physical presence, to intimate communications and engagements, young people have continually faced familial, communitybased, and state-sponsored management of their most basic day-to-day actions and interactions. This obsession with policing puberty has, at times, reached the level of panic. Extreme reactions have manifested themselves not only in behaviors of individual actors, but also in the terms of court orders, local ordinances, and codified laws. This article seeks to examine this recurring phenomenon and suggests that adults might find more productive ways to grapple with the teen identity formation process in this country
Going Back to the Drawing Board: Re-Entrenching the Higher Education Act to Restore Its Historical Policy of Access
No full textThis article explores both the historical entrenchment of the Higher Education Act (“HEA” or “the Act”) and ongoing attempts to retrench it. In it, I argue that Congress should return the HEA to its historical roots and enact reauthorizing legislation that will set the course for re-entrenching the Act and its historical policy. This re-entrenching will properly set the focus of the Act on providing widespread higher education access by creating and implementing new pathways (funding and otherwise) to that access.
In the article, I discuss the entrenchment of the HEA into American culture in an effort to understand the historical view of United States’ society toward government funded higher education. I also discuss the ongoing retrenchment of the HEA by exploring, in the context of all HEA reauthorizations, presidential and congressional fiscal policies regarding post-secondary education. Discussing this history simultaneously proves the retrenchment of the HEA’s historical access policy and the importance of preserving a definition of access that balances maintenance of existing pathways to post-secondary education with the necessity for creating new ones. I discuss the changing higher education landscape (focusing on for-profit post-secondary institutions) to validate the need for protecting federal funds, but to also demonstrate how that need for protection has overshadowed the historical policy of widespread post-secondary access.
Finally, in anticipation of the next HEA reauthorization, I urge Congress to begin re-entrenching the Act by returning its primary focus to creation and implementation of new access programming and suggest methods by which it might accomplish this goal