Jump to content

Brent Newton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brent Newton
Born
Brent Evan Newton
NationalityAmerican
EducationUniversity of North Carolina (B.A.)
Columbia Law School (J.D.)
Occupation(s)Deputy Staff Director at United States Sentencing Commission
Professor of Law
WebsiteGeorgetown Law Biography

Brent Evan Newton is an American legal scholar, the former deputy staff director at the United States Sentencing Commission, and a professor of law at Penn State Dickinson Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and American University Washington College of Law.

Newton graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar and a Senior Editor of the Columbia Law Review.[1] After graduating from law school in 1992, he clerked for Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[1] After his clerkship, Newton worked as a public defender in both the state and federal systems.[2] In that role, Newton also represented death row inmates in the American South.[1]

Newton has argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2008, Newton argued Gonzalez v. United States.[3][4] In 2010, Newton was elected as a member of the American Law Institute.[5] In 1993, at the age of twenty-five, Newton handled a capital murder appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[6][7]

Scholarship

[edit]
[edit]

In "Preaching What They Don’t Practice: Why Law Faculties’ Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy," Newton criticizes the legal academy's reliance upon law review articles for tenure consideration, rather than preparing students to practice law.[8][9][10]

Death penalty

[edit]

Newton has written about the death penalty with particular emphasis on the Texas system in which he practiced for many years. In “Capital Punishment: Texas Could Learn a Lot from Florida" (1998), Newton surmised that Texas's high actual execution numbers could be attributed to three factors at that time: the way judges were elected, a weak public defender system, and a flawed jury system that did not allow for the consideration of mitigating evidence.[11]

Law review articles

[edit]

Newton wrote for SCOTUSblog on the value of law review articles for United States Supreme Court justices.[12] According to Newton, about half of all Supreme Court opinions cited at least one law review article in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 2000, however, the rate is" just 37 percent — even as Supreme Court opinions have grown longer and more elaborate."[13]

Contributions to law reviews

[edit]
  • Justice Kennedy, the Purposes of Capital Punishment, and the Future of Lackey Claims, 62 Buff. L. Rev. (2014)[14]
  • The Ninety-Five Theses: Systemic Reforms of American Legal Education and Licensure, 64 S.C. L. Rev. (2012)[15]
  • Law Review Scholarship in the Eyes of the Twenty-First-Century Supreme Court Justices: An Empirical Analysis, 4 Drexel L. Rev. 399 (2012)[16]
  • Preaching What They Don't Practice: Why Law Faculties' Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy, 62 S.C. L. Rev. 105, 106 (2010)[17]
  • Almendarez-Torres and the Anders Ethical Dilemma, 45 Hous. L. Rev. (2008)[18]
  • A Case Study in Systemic Unfairness: The Texas Death Penalty, 1973-1994, 1 Tex. F. on C.L. & C.R. 1 (1994)
  • The Legal Effect of Government Contractor Teaming Agreements: A Proposal for Determining Liability and Assessing Damages in Event of Breach, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 1990 (1991)
[edit]
  • The Slow Wheels of Furman's Machinery of Death, 13 J. App. Prac. & Process 41 (2012)
  • "How Can You Defend A Person You Know Is Guilty?": Reflections of A Public Defender, 33 Am. J. Trial Advoc. (2009)
  • Lopez v. Gonzales: A Window on the Shortcomings of the Federal Appellate Process, 9 J. App. Prac. & Process (2007)
  • A Primer on Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Review, Champion, June 2005[19]
  • Applications for Certificates of Appealability and the Supreme Court's "Obligatory" Jurisdiction, 5 J. App. Prac. & Process 177 (2003)
  • An Argument for Reviving the Actual Futility Exception to the Supreme Court's Procedural Default Doctrine, 4 J. App. Prac. & Process 521 (2002)
  • When Reasonable Jurists Could Disagree: The Fifth Circuit's Misapplication of the Frivolousness Standard, 3 J. App. Prac. & Process (2001)
  • Felons, Firearms, and Federalism: Reconsidering Scarborough in Light of Lopez, 3 J. App. Prac. & Process 671 (2001)
  • Disarray Among the Federal Circuits: Harmless Error Review of Rule 11 Violations, 2 J. App. Prac. & Process 143 (2000)
  • The Antiquated "Slight Evidence Rule" in Federal Conspiracy Cases, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 49 (1999)

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c "Brent E. Newton Profile". ualr.edu/law. William H. Bowen School of Law. Archived from the original on 9 December 2015. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Sentencing Commission bios" (PDF). ussc.gov. United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  3. ^ "Gonzalez v. US". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  4. ^ "Gonzalez v. United States". Oyez. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  5. ^ "The American Law Institute Elects 64 New Members". Reuters.
  6. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (1993-09-02). "IN HER FIRST CASE, GINSBURG DISSENTS". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  7. ^ Buckmelter, Marsi. "Asked and Answered: Brent Newton". NITA. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
  8. ^ "Thank you Brent Newton – American Legal Education is Worthless". The Legal Satyricon. 2010-09-02. Retrieved 7 December 2015.
  9. ^ Bainbridge, Stephen. "The Wrong Stuff: What Law Schools Value in Law Prof Candidates". professorbainbridge.com. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  10. ^ Caron, Paul. "Newton: How Law Profs' Preoccupation with 'Impractical Scholarship' Obstructs Legal Education Reform". TaxProf Blog. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  11. ^ Crockett, Zachary (23 January 2015). "Why Has Texas Executed So Many Inmates?". Priceonomics. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  12. ^ Newton, Brent (2012-04-30). "Scholar's highlight: Law review articles in the eyes of the Justices". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  13. ^ Liptak, Adam (2013-10-21). "The Lackluster Reviews That Lawyers Love to Hate". New York Times. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
  14. ^ "the Purposes of Capital Punishment, and the Future of Lackey Claims" (PDF). Buffalo Law Review.
  15. ^ Newton, Brent Evan (2012-11-07). "The Ninety-Five Theses: Systemic Reforms of American Legal Education and Licensure". South Carolina Law Review. 64. SSRN 1994189.
  16. ^ "Law Review Scholarship in the Eyes of the Twenty-First Century Supreme Court Justices: An Empirical Analysis". Georgetown University Law Center. 2012.
  17. ^ "Preaching What They Don't Practice: Why Law Faculties' Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation ofPreoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal AcademyPractical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the L". South Carolina Law Review. 62 (1). Fall 2010.
  18. ^ "Almendarez-Torres and the Anders Ethical Dilemma" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-12-08.
  19. ^ Newton, Brent. "A Primer On Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Review". nacdl.org. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Brent_Newton&oldid=1211449599"