S
Stephanos Bibas
Researcher at University of Pennsylvania
Publications - 78
Citations - 1446
Stephanos Bibas is an academic researcher from University of Pennsylvania. The author has contributed to research in topics: Criminal procedure & Supreme court. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 78 publications receiving 1358 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephanos Bibas include Washington and Lee University & University of the Pacific (United States).
Papers
More filters
Journal Article
Incompetent Plea Bargaining and Extrajudicial Reforms
TL;DR: For many years, plea bargaining has been a gray m ark et al. as discussed by the authors and the Court has largely focused on the procedures for waiving trial rights, not the substantive pros and cons of striking a deal.
Posted Content
The Story of Brady v. Maryland: From Adversarial Gameship Toward the Search for Innocence?
TL;DR: Steiker et al. as discussed by the authors explained the story behind the landmark criminal procedure decision of the Warren Court, which requires prosecutors to give criminal defendants evidence that tends to negate their guilt or reduce their punishment.
Journal ArticleDOI
Apprendi and the Dynamics of Guilty Pleas
TL;DR: In this article, King and Klein argue that Apprendi v. New Jersey undercuts due process by making it harder for many defendants to secure judicial hearings after they plead guilty, and they fail to see how prosecutorial and judicial behavior reinforce the pressures to plead guilty.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Blakely Earthquake Exposes the Procedure/Substance Fault Line
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how the Supreme Court's majority and dissent could look at Blakely in such radically different ways and conclude that Blakely is a mindless formalism, just another hoop for legislatures to jump through or to evade.
Posted Content
How Apprendi Affects Institutional Allocations of Power
TL;DR: In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases a defendant's statutory maximum sentence must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as mentioned in this paper.