University of Missouri Tiger


Missouri Law Review

The Missouri Law Review is an entirely student-run journal published quarterly by the University of Missouri School of Law. First published in 1936, it is one of the oldest legal publications west of the Mississippi River.

Forthcoming Articles


Juvenile Lifers and Judicial Overreach:

A Curmudgeonly Meditation on Miller v. Alabama

Frank O. Bowman III is a Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law in Columbia, Missouri. Professor Bowman’s article “Juvenile Lifers and Judicial Overreach: A Curmudgeonly Mediation on Miller v. Alabama,” will be published in the upcoming Fall 2013 edition of the Missouri Law Review. This article addresses the United States Supreme Court’s recent holdings in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida that sentencing juveniles to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and discusses how these holdings are troubling as a matter of constitutional interpretation. Professor Bowman’s article was recently quoted in the New York Times piece “Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings,” available at


Bankrupting the Faith

Pamela Foohey is a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. Professor Foohey’s most recent article, “Bankrupting the Faith,” presents the results of an empirical study of faith-based organizations that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 2006 through 2011, addresses the role of bankruptcy courts in these cases, and examines the purposes of business reorganization. This article was recently featured in a Pacific Standard article entitled “The Prophet,” available here and Christianity Today’s article “Churches: The New Risky Bet,” available here. Christianity Today also recently published an interview with author Pamela Foohey, “The Surprise Inside Church Bankruptcies,” available here . “Bankrupting the Faith” will be published in the upcoming Summer 2014 edition of the Missouri Law Review.


Decoupling Federal Offense Guidelines

from Statutory Limits on Sentencing

Forthcoming in Volume 78, Issue 3 of the Missouri Law Review

An article by Kevin Bennardo, Teaching Fellow and Assistant Professor of Professional Practice at the Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, will be published in the upcoming Summer 2013 issue of the Missouri Law Review. Professor Bennardo’s article comments on the relationship between the Federal Offense Guidelines and statutory limits on sentencing. An abstract of his paper is published below:

—    Abstract

When incorporating statutorily-mandated minimum and maximum sentences into offense guidelines, the United States Sentencing Commission must strike a delicate balance between promulgating guidelines that are consistent with federal law and carrying out its characteristic institutional role of advising sentencing courts of proper punishment based on empirical data and national experience.  This article recommends that, in general, when a statutory limit on sentencing deviates from what the Commission deems to be fair punishment, the Commission should incorporate the statutory limit into the offense guideline to the least extent possible.  Although this approach may lead to cliffs and plateaus in the guideline’s sentencing ranges and thereby diminish relative fairness between similarly-situated offenders, this approach maximizes the imposition of actually fair sentences (as viewed by the Commission) within the confines of the statutory scheme.  Controlled substance offenses, however, are an exception.  In some instances, drug offenders are relieved from the application of an otherwise-applicable mandatory minimum sentence through the operation of the so-called “safety valve” or, in some circuits, because the government failed to plead the triggering drug quantity in the indictment or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  To achieve actual fairness for these offenders, the Commission should promulgate a controlled substance offense guideline that takes no account of statutory limits on sentencing.  By amending offense guidelines that incorporate mandatory minimums to more closely reflect its own research and expertise, the Commission will better achieve offense guidelines that produce sentencing ranges that the Commission views as actually fair.