Notes

Notes
1
Linda Drazga Maxfield & John H. Kramer, Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick Gauging Equity in Current Federal Policy and Practice (January 1998), reprinted at 11 Fed. Sent. R. 6(1998).
2
Id. at 4
The Substantial Assistance Staff Working Group, Federal Court Practices: Sentence Reductions Based on Defendant's Substantial Assistance to the Government (May 1997), excerpted at 11 Fed. Sent. R. 18(1998).
3
Maxfield & Kramer, Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick, supra note 1, at 8.
4
Id. at 10.
5
Federal Court Practices, supra note 2, at 149 n.151
6
Stephen J. Schulhofer, Rethinking Mandatory Minimums, 28 Wake Forest L. Rev. 199, 212-13 (1993).
Cynthia Kwei Yung Lee, Prosecutorial Discretion, Substantial Assistance, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 42 UCLA L. Rev. 105, 138 (1994)
7
United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998), rehearing en Banc granted, opinion vacated (July 10, 1998).
8
18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2).
9
Singleton, 144 F.3d at 1347
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485)
10
Cynthia K. Y. Lee, From Gatekeeper to Concierge: Reigning in the Federal Prosecutor's Expanding Power Over Substantial Assistance Departures, 50 Rutgers L. Rev. 199, 245-51 (1997).
11
Federal Court Practices, supra note 2, at 194.
12
Lee, From Gatekeeper to Concierge, supra note 10, at 251.
13
United States v. Knights, 968 F.2d 1483, 1485 (2d Cir. 1992)
14
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992).
15
Lee, From Gatekeeper to Concierge, supra note 10 at 223- 230
17
Patricia Devine, Sterotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components, 56 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 5, 7-8 (1989)
Jody Armour, Stereotypes and Prejudice: Helping Legal Decisionmakers Break the Prejudice Habit, 83 Cal. L. Rev. 733(1995)
This content is only available via PDF.

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview