Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton Jul 2020

United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton

Texas A&M Law Review

The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify …


Peffer V. Stephens: Probable Cause, Searches And Seizures Within The Home, And Why Using Technology Should Not Open Your Front Door, Shane Landers May 2020

Peffer V. Stephens: Probable Cause, Searches And Seizures Within The Home, And Why Using Technology Should Not Open Your Front Door, Shane Landers

Texas A&M Law Review

The Fourth Amendment provides for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Search warrants may only be issued upon a finding of probable cause. This core tenet of our constitutional republic becomes progressively flexible with every development in Fourth Amendment interpretation. In Peffer v. Stephens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered the latest blow to constitutional rights that restrict the State from engaging in unprincipled searches. In an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s alleged use …


“We Can’T Just Throw Our Children Away”: A Discussion Of The Term-Of-Years Sentencing Of Juveniles And What Can Be Done In Texas, Anjelica Harris May 2020

“We Can’T Just Throw Our Children Away”: A Discussion Of The Term-Of-Years Sentencing Of Juveniles And What Can Be Done In Texas, Anjelica Harris

Texas A&M Law Review

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, children are different. The issue of how to sentence juvenile offenders has long been controversial. Although psychology acknowledges the connection between incomplete juvenile brain development and increased criminality, the justice system lags behind in how it handles juvenile offenders. A prime example is the case of Bobby Bostic, who at the age of sixteen was charged with eighteen offenses and sentenced to 241 years in prison. This sentence, known as a term-of-years or virtual life sentence, essentially guarantees that no matter what Bobby does or who he proves himself to be …


Shooting America Straight: Why The Time Is Now For The Supreme Court To Fortify Gun Rights In America Post-Heller, Garrett Cleveland Apr 2020

Shooting America Straight: Why The Time Is Now For The Supreme Court To Fortify Gun Rights In America Post-Heller, Garrett Cleveland

Texas A&M Law Review

Since the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, the Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the many current cases that present an opportunity to address the Second Amendment. As a result, the lower courts have largely eroded firearm rights in many regions of the United States. It is thus imperative that the Supreme Court grant certiorari to a Second Amendment-related case to clarify certain aspects of Heller, or the lower courts will continue to treat the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. Essentially, the lower courts …


The Press, National Security, And Civil Discourse: How A Federal Shield Law Could Reaffirm Media Credibility In An Era Of “Fake News”, Jenna Johnson Feb 2020

The Press, National Security, And Civil Discourse: How A Federal Shield Law Could Reaffirm Media Credibility In An Era Of “Fake News”, Jenna Johnson

Texas A&M Law Review

The Constitution expressly provides protection for the freedom of the press. Yet there is one area in which the press is not so free: the freedom to refuse disclosing confidential sources when subpoenaed by the federal government. Currently, there is no federal reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment provides no such protection, and repeated congressional attempts to codify a reporter’s privilege in a federal shield law have failed.

Arguments against a shield law include national security concerns and the struggle to precisely define “journalist.” Such concerns were evident in the most recently proposed shield law, the …