Ross Reconsidered
Kimberly A. Thomas,
The University of Michigan Law School
We should
reconsider Ross. In Ross v. Moffitt, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that convicted defendants are not constitutionally entitled
to counsel on direct appeal for discretionary appeals to the state supreme
court or U.S. Supreme Court. We should examine Ross anew given the slow evolution that has come to re-emphasize
the centrality of direct review in criminal law, both for individual defendants
and for the development of constitutional criminal law and procedure.
Specifically,
the Article highlights four features that converge to say that we should
reconsider Ross: 1) the utility of counsel on discretionary
review has been underexplored, both before and after Ross; 2) the increased focus by the Court on the need for defendants to obtain relief on direct
appeals; 3)
relatedly, the Court’s interpretation of AEDPA that has moved most of the signficant windows for
criminal law development into the
direct appeal; and 4) an increasing sliver of doctrinal sunlight in which to question Ross. The Article first provides the background on Ross and related law, then explores each
of these in turn.
The Frisk: “Injuries to
Manhood” and to Womanhood
Josephine
Ross, Howard University School of Law
Sometimes a
frisk feels like sexual assault. This is true even when the officer is
following proper police procedures. There is a continuum between the frisk and
outright criminal sexual assault. This chapter of the book seeks to tell that
story using stories, cases, social science and feminist analysis.