Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Estes v. Texas (2)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell (2)
- Anderson v. Redman (1)
- Apgar v. Beauter (1)
- Application of Noel (1)
-
- Bailey v. Lombard (1)
- Baxtrom v. Herold (1)
- Blockburger test (1)
- Board of Regents v. Roth (1)
- Bolding v. Holshouser (1)
- Bridges v. California (1)
- Burnside v. Burnside (1)
- CBS Inc. v. Young (1)
- Campbell v. District Court of Eighteenth Judicial District for County of Arapahoe (1)
- Capps v. Atiyeh (1)
- Central South Carolina Chapter Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin (1)
- Chandler v. Florida (1)
- Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer (1)
- Clay v. Miller (1)
- DSM-III (1)
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Estelle v. Gamble (1)
- Florida v. Bannister (1)
- Gitlow v. New York (1)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex (1)
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court (1)
- Harris v. Ballone (1)
- Hirschkop v. Snead (1)
- Holderbaum v. Watkins (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal
Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal
Law Faculty Publications
The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy serves three distinct purposes: (1) prohibition of a second prosecution after acquittal; (2) prohibition of a second prosecution after conviction; and (3) prohibition of multiple punishments for the same offense. This article addresses the problem of defining "the same offense," and specifically focuses on the application of the Blockburger test in light of Whalen v. United States.
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
University of Richmond Law Review
Writing in Bridges v. California, Justice Hugo Black observed forty years ago that "free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them." And yet, these constitutionally guaranteed rights have been in conflict since at least 1807.
Figuring Good-Time -- The Postconviction Process, Edward D. Barnes, Guy A. Sibilla
Figuring Good-Time -- The Postconviction Process, Edward D. Barnes, Guy A. Sibilla
University of Richmond Law Review
On July 1, 1981, a new statutory scheme for the administration of parole release became effective in Virginia. Although these new statutes which deal with the system of awarding credits for good conduct are not novel, only two other states, Arkansas and Texas, are reported to have implemented such a scheme. The following article addresses, in a general sense, the parole eligibility and release process in Virginia. This may provide some guidance for practicing attorneys and aid them in representing their clients' interests before the Virginia Parole Board. Additionally, the article reviews the newly introduced good conduct allowance system and …
"Arbeit Macht Frei:" Vocational Rehabilitation And The Release Of Virginia's Criminally Insane, Daryl B. Matthews, Patrick J. Coyne
"Arbeit Macht Frei:" Vocational Rehabilitation And The Release Of Virginia's Criminally Insane, Daryl B. Matthews, Patrick J. Coyne
University of Richmond Law Review
The release from confinement of persons acquitted by reason of insanity is one of the most perplexing problems of the criminal law. The insanity acquittee's release confronts our deepest fears, and the procedures which society employes in this process force us to face the difficult and often intractable issue of the responsibility of the criminally insane.
Prison Overcrowding As Cruel And Unusual Punishment In Light Of Rhodes V. Chapman, Elizabeth F. Edwards, Nancy G. Lagow
Prison Overcrowding As Cruel And Unusual Punishment In Light Of Rhodes V. Chapman, Elizabeth F. Edwards, Nancy G. Lagow
University of Richmond Law Review
The prison population in the United States is experiencing a period of tremendous growth. Due to the inability of prison construction to keep pace with this growth, prison facilities throughout the country have become severely overcrowded. "The typical prison of the last third of the twentieth century has changed relatively little from the institutions of 150 years earlier." Inmates, forced to live under these conditions, have flocked to the courts seeking relief. Yet, until its 1981 decision in Rhodes v. Chapman, the United States Supreme Court had never reviewed a case in which particular prison conditions were challenged as constituting …
Babies Behind Bars: Should Incarcerated Mothers Be Allowed To Keep Their Newborns With Them In Prison?, Donna L. Brodie
Babies Behind Bars: Should Incarcerated Mothers Be Allowed To Keep Their Newborns With Them In Prison?, Donna L. Brodie
University of Richmond Law Review
Society's traditional approach to women offenders has been focused on "women as prisoners and not.., prisoners as women." Harsh implications for female offenders who are mothers can result from the view that incarceration not only curtails the prisoner's freedom of movement but also terminates many of the individual's civil rights as well. In reality, these women are doubly penalized with a prison sentence as well as temporary or permanent loss of their parental rights. Modern courts are beginning to recognize that "[a] prisoner retains all of the rights of an ordinary citizen except those expressly, or by necessary implication, taken …
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
University of Richmond Law Review
The Supreme Court recently held in Chandler v. Florida, that absent a showing of actual prejudice, it is not per se unconstitutional to televise trials over the objection of the defendant. This decision has a direct bearing on state court procedures, as over one-half of the states currently permit television coverage of trials in one form or another. However, sheer numbers supporting a proposition do not make that proposition "right", nor does a Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality imply an unqualified stamp of approval. In fact, previous Supreme Court decisions have overturned convictions because the defendant's right to a …