Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Evolving Standards Of Irrelevancy?, Joanmarie Davoli
Evolving Standards Of Irrelevancy?, Joanmarie Davoli
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Defender General, Daniel Epps, William Ortman
The Defender General, Daniel Epps, William Ortman
Scholarship@WashULaw
The United States needs a Defender General—a public official charged with representing the collective interests of criminal defendants before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is effectively our nation’s chief regulator of criminal justice. But in the battle to influence the Court’s rulemaking, government interests have substantial structural advantages. As compared to counsel for defendants, government lawyers—and particularly those from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office—tend to be more experienced advocates who have more credibility with the Court. Most importantly, government lawyers can act strategically to play for bigger long-term victories, while defense lawyers must zealously advocate …
Section 4: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
The Young And The Redemptionless? Juvenile Offenders Before Miller V. Alabama, Katherine Johnson
The Young And The Redemptionless? Juvenile Offenders Before Miller V. Alabama, Katherine Johnson
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive criminal sanctions, and the Supreme Court has held that this provision has special application in situations dealing with juvenile offenders. This Commentary looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that there was a constititutional prohibition of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. This Commentary argues that this is the correct result under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence but that the Court should also have held that the sole remedy for such constitutional violations is resentencing.
Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: Criminal Law & Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Criminal Law & Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 7: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 9: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 9: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 8: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 8: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.