It's an ex post fact: supreme court misapplies the ex post facto clause to criminal procedure statutes

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 429-468

  Kitson, Danielle ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035617304     PISSN: 00914169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1144270     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. 120 S. Ct. 1620 (2000).
2. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 10, cl. 1. ("No state shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . .").
3. The Statute authorized conviction of sexual offenses on a victim's testimony alone, under certain conditions. See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art. 38.07 (West 2000) (providing that a conviction "is supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a sexual offense if the victim informed any person, other than the defendant, of the alleged offense within one year after the date on which the offense is alleged to have occurred," or if "the victim was younger than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.")
4. See Carmell, 120 S. Ct. at 1643 (holding that petitioner's convictions pursuant to Article 38.07 could not be sustained under the Ex Post Facto Law Clause).
5. See id. at 1625, 1631 (reasoning that "Article 38.07 is unquestionably a law 'that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."); Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390 (1798) (noting that "every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender," is an ex post facto law). 6 3 U.S. at 389.
6. See supra notes 254-55; see also supra Section VB (discussion of Article 38.07 as a law of witness competency).
7. See id.
8. See supra note 94.
9. See supra Section VA (discussion of the majority's reliance on Fenwick's case).
10. See id.
11. See supra note 310; see also supra Section VC (discussion of the abandonment of Calder's fourth category.
12. See supra note 260.