NCJ Number
214558
Journal
Yale Law & Policy Review Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: 2006 Pages: 91-147
Date Published
2006
Length
57 pages
Annotation
This article argues that prison administrators' elimination of prison law libraries under the impetus of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Casey (1996) undermines the work of the "jailhouse lawyer," which is vital to the proper functioning of the penal system.
Abstract
In "Lewis," the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not grant inmates the right of access to legal research materials, thus reversing the portion of its Bounds v. Smith (1977) opinion that placed an affirmative obligation on prisons to provide law libraries as a constitutionally sufficient alternative for providing "adequate, effective, and meaningful" access to the courts. Although prison law libraries have not been used by a high percentage of inmates, they have been essential for the work of "jailhouse lawyers," who are inmates with legal knowledge that they use to assess another inmate's legal problems, find valid legal authority, provide accurate and insightful legal advice, and possibly present legal arguments to judges or other decisionmaking authorities. The author recommends the development of a standardized Jailhouse Lawyer Bar Examination to preserve the occupation for qualified and promising inmates. Jailhouse lawyers rely on prison law libraries to build their legal knowledge and research the legal aspects of an inmate's specific case. This article examines the characteristics of an effective jailhouse lawyer and describes essential functions performed by the jailhouse lawyer. It then discusses the influence of the "Lewis" decision on jailhouse lawyers across the Nation. Issues discussed are the nature of the examination, the organizations that might administer it, and the privileges that should be accorded inmates who pass the examination. 346 notes