Professor Anne Traum Writes Guest Blog Post for Hamilton and Griffin on Rights

Professor Anne Traum is Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education and Director of the Appellate Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

On June 27, Professor Traum wrote a guest blog post titled "Clark Constricts Right to Confront Accusers" for the Hamilton and Griffin on Rights blog.

"Last week in Ohio v. Clark, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause did not apply to the accusatory statements of a three-year old child that led to the defendant’s felony convictions. All nine justices agreed that the child’s statements were not 'testimonial' under Crawford v. Washington ... " Professor Traum wrote.

She continued, "Although Clark appears to be a straightforward application of the primary purpose test, it breaks new ground by suggesting several new default rules, namely, that statements to non-police, statements by young children, and statements elicited based on a safety concern are not testimonial under Crawford. Though Clark adheres to Crawford analysis, it significantly limits a defendant’s ability to confront his accusers."

Professor Traum's research focuses on criminal adjudication and sentencing, immigration, and habeas corpus.

Jan. 29 Boyd Briefs Now Available

The Jan. 29 edition of Boyd Briefs is now available.

This week's edition features Professor Anne Traum, student Michael Alires, and alumna Alissa Cooley '14. 

Professor Traum's hallmark is drawing on theory to propose sensible reforms that can reasonably be implemented within the existing legal rules or with only incremental change. With increasing interest in criminal justice reform both on the bench and in the halls of policy makers, Professor Traum's fresh voice is being heard on the national stage.

Now in his third year, Alires works as a part of the Small Business and Nonprofit Clinic's inaugural class. He also has served on the Student Bar Association Board of Governors, as a member of the UNLV Gaming Law Journal, and as Vice President of the UNLV Graduate and Professional Student Association.

Immigration law is a new passion for Cooley. Though long interested in indigent defense and the protection of constitutional rights, she had never considered immigration law as an outlet. Her first experience with immigration law occurred in the fall of her 4L year, when she assisted in the release of a student-authored report on the conditions of confinement for immigrant detainees at the Henderson Detention Center.

To subscribe to Boyd Briefs, visit law.unlv.edu/BoydBriefs.

Professor Anne Traum to Present at The Taslitz Galaxy: A Gathering of Scholars at Howard

Professor Anne Traum is Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education and Director of the Appellate Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

Professor Traum will attend The Taslitz Galaxy: A Gathering of Scholars at Howard University in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 19.

She will deliver a talk titled, “Plea Pricing in the Modern Era.”

The conference is held in honor of prolific law scholar Andrew Taslitz. Panelists will speak on a variety of subjects, including mistaken identification and innocence, evidence, morality and ethics, and criminal procedure.

Professors Anne Traum, Leslie Griffin, and Jean Sternlight To Attend 2014 District Court Conference

Professors Anne Traum, Leslie C. Griffin and Jean Sternlight will attend the 2014 United States District Court Conference on May 8 in Reno, Nev.

The conference provides members of the Bar with the opportunity to interact with federal judges, while learning more about federal practice.

Professor Traum is attending as a Lawyer Representative who has also served on the Conference's planning committee.

Professor Griffin will be speaking at the conference on the subject of important Supreme Court cases of 2013.

Professor Sternlight will speak on the issue of unethical behavior in the legal profession. She'll  provide insight into why attorneys are often able to resist substantial pressure to act unethically, and will additionally explore steps that lawyers and organizations can take to guard against unethical missteps.

Associate Professor Anne Traum Writes Article for Communiqué, Highlights Work of Alumnus Seth Floyd '10

Anne Traum is Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education, Associate Professor of Law, and Director of the Appellate Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

She wrote an article titled Taking Pro Bono to the Next Level for the February issue of the Clark County Bar Association's Communiqué magazine.

"Nevada lawyers... now have a new opportunity to handle pro bono appeals in the Nevada Supreme Court. This is because the court in 2013, under the leadership of then-Chief Justice Kristina Pickering, expanded its pro bono program to include more appeals and more lawyers. The Nevada Appellate Pro Bono Program provides the perfect opportunity for lawyers to develop appellate skills while serving a critical need," the article reads.

In her article, Professor Traum highlights the work of Boyd alumnus Seth Floyd '10.

"When Seth Floyd, an associate at MacDonald Carano Wilson in Las Vegas, had the opportunity to take a pro bono appeal last August, he leaped at the chance. Seth had added his name to a list of lawyers willing to accept pro bono appeals for indigent clients with a guarantee of oral argument before the Nevada Supreme Court. He took a family law case and, so far, the experience has been as rich as anticipated: 'I have been exposed to every detail of an appeal, from the initial client meting to compiling the appendix to brief-writing,'" the article says.

Professor Traum's research focuses on criminal adjudication and sentencing, immigration, and habeas corpus. 

Professor Traum Places Latest Article in the Florida Law Review

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum placed her latest article, "Using Outcomes to Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication," in the Florida Law Review.

The abstract for Professor Traum's article provides:  "The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Frye v. Missouri lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial regulation of guilty pleas that considers outcomes.  These cases confirm that courts enjoy robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. This Article traces these significant doctrinal shifts and argues that they supply both impetus and authority for trial courts to regulate guilty pleas by monitoring plea outcomes. This proposal builds on market-based concepts while strengthening the judicial role in safeguarding constitutional values. By monitoring outcomes, courts can detect and correct factors in the plea market, like prosecutorial overreaching and deficient counsel, which can distort the parties’ ability to negotiate fair results. Outcomes monitoring is justified for practical reasons because it builds on courts’ expertise and unique place in the plea markets, it can be implemented at the trial court level, it reinforces courts’ traditional sentencing authority, and it can prevent litigation of prejudicial ineffective assistance in post-conviction proceedings."

Professor Traum's Florida Law Review article follows three other Traum articles recently placed in Hastings Law Journal, Cardozo Law Review, and Maryland Law Review.  See Anne R. Traum, Mass Incarceration at Sentencing, 64 Hastings L.J. 423 (2013); Anne R. Traum, Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on Its Own Path, 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 491 (2011); and Anne R. Traum, Last Best Chance for the Great Writ: Equitable Tolling and Federal Habeas Corpus, 68 Md. L. Rev. 545 (2009)).

Congratulations, Anne! 

Boyd to Host Fourth Annual Southwest Criminal Law Conference

We are very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum has organized and will be hosting the Fourth Annual Southwest Criminal Law Conference on September 6-8, 2012, at Boyd.

During the conference, criminal law scholars from across the region will discuss works in progress and exchange ideas for further development of such works. The conference will begin with a dinner on the evening of Thursday, September 6. Participants will workshop papers with assigned commentators in 60 to 90 minute sessions on Friday, September 7, and during the morning of Saturday, September 8. The conference will conclude with a lunch on Saturday.

Past law school conference hosts have included the Universities of Arizona, Colorado, and Irvine/Chapman. Thank you, Anne, for bringing this great event to Boyd.

Professor Traum's Latest Article to Be Published in the Hastings Law Journal

The Boyd School of Law is very pleased to announce that Professor Anne Traum's latest article will be published in Volume 64 of the Hastings Law Journal.

The abstract for Mass Incarceration at Sentencing provides: "Courts can address the problem of mass incarceration at sentencing. Although scholars suggest that the most effective response may be through policy and legislative reform, judicial consideration of mass incarceration at sentencing would provide an additional response that can largely be implemented without wholesale reform. Mass incarceration presents a difficult problem for courts because it is a systemic problem that harms people on several scales – individual, family and community, and the power of courts to address such broad harm is limited. This Article proposes that judges should consider mass incarceration, a systemic problem, in individual criminal cases at sentencing. Sentencing is well-suited to this purpose because it is a routine phase of a criminal case when courts have great flexibility to individualize punishment based on individual and systemic factors. In this phase, judicial discretion is at its highest, judges’ contact with defendants is most direct, and the broadest scope of information properly flows to the court. Mass incarceration can be viewed as a systemic concern that is relevant to both the defendant’s history and the traditional sentencing purposes, including the need to benefit public safety and to ensure that sentences are fair and just. Information about mass incarceration would enhance courts’ understanding of the impacts of sentencing on the defendant and others in the local community. This Article articulates how this can be accomplished in federal sentencing, and suggests doctrinal and practice changes that would enhance courts’ capacity to consider and mitigate the harms of mass incarceration in individual cases."

The article's full citation is: Anne R. Traum, Mass Incarceration at Sentencing, 64 Hastings L.J. __ (forthcoming 2013). Congratulations, Anne!

Professor Traum Publishes in Cardozo Law Review

Congratulations to Professor Anne Traum on the publication of her recent article in Volume 33 of the Cardozo Law Review.

The abstract for "Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on its Own Path" provides: "Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional issues (including due process) and criminal statutory interpretation. The Court has accorded agency deference on matters of agency expertise, which does not include interpretation of criminal law and convictions. And the Court has created generally applicable procedural protections in order to minimize court interference with substantive immigration policy. Guided by these core concepts, courts are poised to develop procedural protections for immigrants in removal proceedings that are tailored to the institutional interests at stake and protective of immigrants. By constitutionalizing immigration on its own path, courts may also avoid some of the pitfalls of a Sixth Amendment–based criminal-rights model."

The article's full text (Anne Traum, Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on Its Own Path, 33 CARDOZO L. REV. 491 (2011)) is available for download at UNLV's Scholarly Commons as well as SSRN.