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 …

Murr V. Wisconsin, Nathan A. Burke

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Court redefined how to determine private property for a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. Previously, courts have primarily relied on state property principles to determine the relevant unit of property for a regulatory takings claim. However, in this case, the Court adopted a three-factor standard to determine the landowner’s reasonable expectations regarding the treatment of their property. By relying on these factors rather than only on state laws, the Court created a litigation-specific definition of property that could potentially differ from state property boundaries. The three-factor standard may also give the government an …

Wheeler For Two, Do You Have A Reservation? The Supreme Court's Inconsistent Treatment Of Tribal Sovereignty, Fred Kantrow

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

Overseas Lawful Permanent Resident Terrorists: The Novel Approach For Revoking Their Lpr Status, Daniel Pines

San Diego Law Review

This Article seeks to break the silence by examining the issue of overseas LPRs and offering a mechanism by which the U.S. government could take affirmative action to file cases in immigration courts to strip out-of-status LPR terrorists of their LPR status. As the United States legally can, and routinely does, revoke the LPR status of out-of-status LPRs who appear at U.S. borders, the United States could also take away such status for those who have resorted to terror, without having to wait—perhaps in vain—for them to appear on the United States’ doorstep. The purpose of granting an individual LPR …

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.

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.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Uniform Innocent Owner Defense To Civil Asset Forfeiture: The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Of 2000 Creates A Uniform Innocent Owner Defense To Most Civil Forfeiture Cases Filed By The Federal Government, Stefan D. Cassella

Kentucky Law Journal

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.

Clients Should Have No Interest In Iolta Programs: An Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Decision In Phillips V. Washington Legal Foundation, Emily Hood

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.

Toward An Expanded View Of The Due Process Claim In Entrapment Cases, Paul Marcus

Georgia State University Law Review

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" …

Criminal Law - Double Jeopardy - Prior Conviction Of First Degree Murder Resulting In A Penalty Of Life Imprisonment Held To Be An Implied Acquittal Of The Death Penalty On A Retrial Secured On Defendant's Appeal. People V. Henderson (Cal. 1963), George Cory

San Diego Law Review

This recent case discusses People v. Henderson (Cal. 1963)

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

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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

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.

The Nature Of Succession, James T. Connor

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.