Digital Commons Network^™

A Blind Spot In Miranda Rights: Juveniles' Lack Of Understanding Regarding, Wadad Barakat

St. Thomas Law Review

This Comment addresses the negative implications of juveniles who waive their Miranda rights due to lack of knowledge, fear, and lack of cognitive capabilities." First, this Comment will provide insight regarding the Fifth Amendment, the history of Miranda, and key cases that lead to the reform of Miranda. Second, this Comment will discuss juveniles' perspective of the Miranda language along with the police's perspective. In particular, it will emphasize the complexity of the language as it stands today and how juveniles' cognitive abilities are insufficiently developed to understand it. Lastly, this Comment will propose guidelines to prevent minors from giving …

The Rational Basis Test And Why It Is So Irrational: An Eighty-Year Retrospective, James M. Mcgoldrick Jr.

San Diego Law Review

The Rational Basis test is one of the most common and yet perhaps the most insignificant United States Supreme Court test in the history of the constitution, yet year in year out clients and lawyers will submit another brief hoping against hope that this time there might be a meaningful outcome. There will not be.

This article attempts to explain why the rational basis test is so irrational in its outcome, why basic interests are disregarded in the name of judicial respect for the legislative process, and how easy it would be for there to be a better outcome. The …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, People V. Carranza, Yale Pollack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Patane: The Beginning Of The End Of Miranda, Bryce Chauncey Loveland

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifth Amendment Protection For Public Employees: Garrity And Limited Constitutional Protections From Use Of Employer Coerced Statements In Internal Investigations And Practical Considerations, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Turn-Coat Disclosure: The Importance Of Following Procedure - Turturro V. City Of New York, Brittany A. Fiorenza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

I’Ll Take “Improper Declarations Of Mistrial” For $2,000.00: Applying The Protection Against Double Jeopardy - Robar V. Labuda, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Homosexuals, Equal Protection, And The Guarantee Of Fundamental Rights In The New Decade: An Optimist’S Quasi-Suspect View Of Recent Events And Their Impact On Heightened Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation-Based Discrimination, John Nicodemo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department: People V. Gibson, Kashima A. Loney

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To An Attorney, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court has identified two distinct rights to an attorney that stem from the U.S. Constitution. One is rooted in the Fifth Amendment. The other is rooted in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.

Takings Cases In The October 2004 Term (Symposium: The Seventeenth Annual Supreme Court Review), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

"[B]Etween The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea:"* A Look At The Fifth Amendment Implications Of Probation Programs For Sex Offenders Requiring Mandatory Admissions Of Guilt, Brendan J. Shevlin

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Status Of Double Jeopardy And Forfeiture Law In The Sixth Circuit, Stefan D. Cassella

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Limits The Fifth Amendment Right To Counsel By Requiring Clear Requests--Davis V. United States, Gregory J. Griffith

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Analysis Comes Home: The "Same Conduct" Standard In Grady V. Corbin, James M. Herrick

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy V. Double Punishment--Confusion In California, Michael J. Bruce

San Diego Law Review

This Article proposes to clarify this area of criminal practice. California Penal Code § 1023, prohibiting multiple prosecutions, and California Penal Code § 654, prohibiting multiple punishment for the same act or omission, are often misapplied by the California criminal courts. California Penal Code § 1023 sets down two tests to determine whether jeopardy has attached: the "identity of the offense" test and the "necessarily included offense" test. California Penal Code § 654 proscribes double punishment using concurrent sentencing, and prevents double jeopardy using not only the "necessarily included offense" test from § 1023, but also a broader "indivisible transaction" …

Self-Incrimination And Congressional Investigations, E. G. Trimble

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Private Documents And The Fifth Amendment, Tom Soyars

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Scientific Tests Of Body Substances As Evidence, Luther House

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.