A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction

The many consequences of constitutionalizing the right to appeal become evident only when one answers certain underlying questions about the nature of an appeal. What are the essential elements of an appeal? Why should we view the criminal defendant\u27s right to appeal as an element of due process of law? Part II of this Article seeks to develop a theoretical due process framework for use in deciding when the right to appeal under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution has been unconstitutionally abridged or denied. Part III contains an analysis of oral argument as an essential element of the right to appeal. Finally, parts IV through VII discuss some of the possible consequences flowing from the constitutionalization of the right to appeal in criminal cases

Unbridled Prosecutorial Discretion and Standardless Death Penalty Policies: The Unconstitutionality of the Washington Capital Punishment Statutory Scheme

This Article advances six reasons why Washington\u27s statutory scheme for capital punishment should be deemed unconstitutional. The current death penalty statutes violate the separation of powers doctrine, the grand jury indictment clause of the fifth amendment, the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment and article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution, the vagueness doctrine of the due process clause, and the doctrine of unlawful delegation of legislative power. Finally, it promotes an unequal administration of capital punishment in further violation of the guarantee of equal protection of the law

Unbridled Prosecutorial Discretion and Standardless Death Penalty Policies: The Unconstitutionality of the Washington Capital Punishment Statutory Scheme

This Article advances six reasons why Washington\u27s statutory scheme for capital punishment should be deemed unconstitutional. The current death penalty statutes violate the separation of powers doctrine, the grand jury indictment clause of the fifth amendment, the equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment and article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution, the vagueness doctrine of the due process clause, and the doctrine of unlawful delegation of legislative power. Finally, it promotes an unequal administration of capital punishment in further violation of the guarantee of equal protection of the law

The Residential Tenant\u27s Right to Freedom of Political Expression

This Article outlines the arguments to be made on behalf of residential tenants who display political signs and who encounter threats of eviction, rent increases, and other forms of landlord opposition. In Section II, the Article describes the development of the general principles of constitutional law applicable to disputes between property owners and tenants who wish to use the property owners’ premises as a forum for the expression of the tenants’ ideas and beliefs. Tracing the history of the United States Supreme Court rulings in this area, the authors analyze the waxing and waning of first amendment speech rights, the development of property-based first amendment speech rights, and the recognition of state constitutional free speech rights that are broader than their first amendment counterparts. Section III analyzes the application of freedom of speech principles to disputes between landlords and residential tenants, when the tenants wish to display political signs on the leased property. Section III also presents and analyzes the arguments frequently relied upon by landlords. For the benefit of those tenants residing in states where state constitutional free speech rights have not been liberally construed, the authors discuss the common law property rights of tenants, citing reasons why those rights are superior to the property rights of landlords in the context of disputes over tenant political expression. Finally, in Section IV, the Article concludes with an assessment of the public policy justifications for refusing to enforce contractual waivers (such as rule 13 of the lease in Paulsen v. Seamark) of a tenant’s right to freedom of political expression

The Residential Tenant\u27s Right to Freedom of Political Expression

This Article outlines the arguments to be made on behalf of residential tenants who display political signs and who encounter threats of eviction, rent increases, and other forms of landlord opposition. In Section II, the Article describes the development of the general principles of constitutional law applicable to disputes between property owners and tenants who wish to use the property owners’ premises as a forum for the expression of the tenants’ ideas and beliefs. Tracing the history of the United States Supreme Court rulings in this area, the authors analyze the waxing and waning of first amendment speech rights, the development of property-based first amendment speech rights, and the recognition of state constitutional free speech rights that are broader than their first amendment counterparts. Section III analyzes the application of freedom of speech principles to disputes between landlords and residential tenants, when the tenants wish to display political signs on the leased property. Section III also presents and analyzes the arguments frequently relied upon by landlords. For the benefit of those tenants residing in states where state constitutional free speech rights have not been liberally construed, the authors discuss the common law property rights of tenants, citing reasons why those rights are superior to the property rights of landlords in the context of disputes over tenant political expression. Finally, in Section IV, the Article concludes with an assessment of the public policy justifications for refusing to enforce contractual waivers (such as rule 13 of the lease in Paulsen v. Seamark) of a tenant’s right to freedom of political expression

A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction

The many consequences of constitutionalizing the right to appeal become evident only when one answers certain underlying questions about the nature of an appeal. What are the essential elements of an appeal? Why should we view the criminal defendant\u27s right to appeal as an element of due process of law? Part II of this Article seeks to develop a theoretical due process framework for use in deciding when the right to appeal under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution has been unconstitutionally abridged or denied. Part III contains an analysis of oral argument as an essential element of the right to appeal. Finally, parts IV through VII discuss some of the possible consequences flowing from the constitutionalization of the right to appeal in criminal cases