Stanford Law School Criminal Defense Clinic and Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
←Created page with 'The '''Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project is one of the eleven Mills Legal Clinics at Stanford Law School. Founded in 2006, it provi...'
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Stanford Law School Criminal Defense Clinic''' is one of the eleven Mills [[legal clinic|Legal Clinics]] at [[Stanford Law School]]. Founded in [[2006]], it provides legal representation to convicts serving [[life sentence]]s under [[California|California's]] [[three strikes law]] for committing minor, non-violent [[felony|felonies]]. Under the supervision of clinic instructors, students represent clients in both [[United States federal courts|federal]] and [[Courts of California|state]] court. The Clinic is directed by [[lawyer|attorneys]] Michael Romano and Galit Lipa.
The '''Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project is one of the eleven Mills [[legal clinic|Legal Clinics]] at [[Stanford Law School]]. Founded in [[2006]], it provides legal representation to convicts serving [[life sentence]]s under [[California|California's]] [[three strikes law]] for committing minor, non-violent [[felony|felonies]]. Under the supervision of clinic instructors, students represent clients in both [[United States federal courts|federal]] and [[Courts of California|state]] court. The Project is directed by [[lawyer|attorneys]] Michael Romano and Galit Lipa.


In order to secure the release of its clients, the Clinic pursues [[sentence (law)|resentencing]] hearings or [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] challenges to the sentences imposed, either by [[appeal|direct appeal]] or post-conviction [[habeas corpus in the United States|habeas petitions]]. Typical claims include [[ineffective assistance of counsel]] under the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]], [[cruel and unusual punishment]] prohibited by the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]], and resentencing petitions under ''People v. Superior Court (Romero)'', 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996), and ''People v. Williams'', 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998). Clinic students work in two-person teams representing a single client, visiting the client in prison, conducting factual investigations throughout California, and drafting court pleadings and briefs.
In order to secure the release of its clients, the Project pursues [[sentence (law)|resentencing]] hearings or [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] challenges to the sentences imposed, either by [[appeal|direct appeal]] or post-conviction [[habeas corpus in the United States|habeas petitions]]. Typical claims include [[ineffective assistance of counsel]] under the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]], [[cruel and unusual punishment]] prohibited by the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]], and resentencing petitions under ''People v. Superior Court (Romero)'', 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996), and ''People v. Williams'', 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998). Clinic students work in two-person teams representing a single client, visiting the client in prison, conducting factual investigations throughout California, and drafting court pleadings and briefs.


Despite facing difficult legal terrain under ''[[Ewing v. California]]'', 538 U.S. 11 (2003), and ''[[Lockyer v. Andrade]]'', 538 U.S. 63 (2003), in which the [[United States Supreme Court]] effectively foreclosed relief for the disproportionality of third-strike sentences under the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Cruel_and_unusual_punishments|federal Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause]], the Clinic has been largely successful. To date, it has won the reversal or resentencing of thirteen life sentences.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/clinics/criminaldefense/#success_stories|title=Criminal Defense Clinic Success Stories}}</ref> Previous clients had been sentenced to life in prison for minor crimes such as possession of less than a gram of [[narcotics]], stealing a dollar's worth of change from a car, writing bad checks, and stealing tools from a tow truck.
Despite facing difficult legal terrain under ''[[Ewing v. California]]'', 538 U.S. 11 (2003), and ''[[Lockyer v. Andrade]]'', 538 U.S. 63 (2003), in which the [[United States Supreme Court]] effectively foreclosed relief for the disproportionality of third-strike sentences under the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Cruel_and_unusual_punishments|federal Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause]], the Project has been largely successful. To date, it has won the reversal or resentencing of fourteen life sentences.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/clinics/criminaldefense/#success_stories|title=Criminal Defense Clinic Success Stories}}</ref> Previous clients had been sentenced to life in prison for minor crimes such as possession of less than a gram of [[narcotics]], stealing a dollar's worth of change from a car, writing bad checks, and stealing tools from a tow truck.


The Clinic has been featured in stories by the [[New York Times Magazine]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23strikes-t.html?hp|title=Arguing Three Strikes|newspaper=[[New York Times Magazine]]}}</ref>, the [[Los Angeles Times]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/local/me-threestrikes13|title=Law students help free three-strikes offenders|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/16/opinion/ed-stanford16|title=Three strikes sanity|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref>, [[The Economist]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13832435|title=Criminal law in California|newspaper=[[The Economist]]}}</ref>, and the [[BBC]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004gz5b/Assignment_Three_Strike_Lifers|title=Assignment: Three Strike Lifers|newspaper=[[BBC]]}}</ref>
The Project has been featured in stories by the [[New York Times Magazine]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23strikes-t.html?hp|title=Arguing Three Strikes|newspaper=[[New York Times Magazine]]}}</ref>, the [[Los Angeles Times]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/local/me-threestrikes13|title=Law students help free three-strikes offenders|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/16/opinion/ed-stanford16|title=Three strikes sanity|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref>, [[The Economist]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13832435|title=Criminal law in California|newspaper=[[The Economist]]}}</ref>, and the [[BBC]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004gz5b/Assignment_Three_Strike_Lifers|title=Assignment: Three Strike Lifers|newspaper=[[BBC]]}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 17:38, 2 June 2010

The Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project is one of the eleven Mills Legal Clinics at Stanford Law School. Founded in 2006, it provides legal representation to convicts serving life sentences under California's three strikes law for committing minor, non-violent felonies. Under the supervision of clinic instructors, students represent clients in both federal and state court. The Project is directed by attorneys Michael Romano and Galit Lipa.

In order to secure the release of its clients, the Project pursues resentencing hearings or constitutional challenges to the sentences imposed, either by direct appeal or post-conviction habeas petitions. Typical claims include ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, and resentencing petitions under People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996), and People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998). Clinic students work in two-person teams representing a single client, visiting the client in prison, conducting factual investigations throughout California, and drafting court pleadings and briefs.

Despite facing difficult legal terrain under Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), in which the United States Supreme Court effectively foreclosed relief for the disproportionality of third-strike sentences under the federal Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Project has been largely successful. To date, it has won the reversal or resentencing of fourteen life sentences.[1] Previous clients had been sentenced to life in prison for minor crimes such as possession of less than a gram of narcotics, stealing a dollar's worth of change from a car, writing bad checks, and stealing tools from a tow truck.

The Project has been featured in stories by the New York Times Magazine[2], the Los Angeles Times[3][4], The Economist[5], and the BBC.[6]

References

  1. ^ "Criminal Defense Clinic Success Stories".
  2. ^ "Arguing Three Strikes". New York Times Magazine.
  3. ^ "Law students help free three-strikes offenders". Los Angeles Times.
  4. ^ "Three strikes sanity". Los Angeles Times.
  5. ^ "Criminal law in California". The Economist.
  6. ^ "Assignment: Three Strike Lifers". BBC.

External links

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_Law_School_Criminal_Defense_Clinic&oldid=365674590"