Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr
Maine Law Review
On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …
Withrow V. Williams And Collateral Review Of Miranda Violations: The Supreme Court Rejects The Rule Of Stone V. Powell Under A Revised View Of Applicable Prudential Concerns, John K. Byrum Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
More than fifty years before ratification of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, Lord Camden observed: [I]t is very certain, that the law obligeth no man to accuse himself; because the necessary means of compelling self-accusation, falling upon the innocent as well as the guilty, would be both cruel and unjust; and it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the same principle. There, too, the innocent would be confounded with the guilty. Over one hundred years later, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court affirmed this relationship between Fourth and Fifth Amendment liberties, holding that …
Brecht V. Abrahamson: Another Step Toward Evisceration Of Habeas Corpus, Lisa S. Spickler
Brecht V. Abrahamson: Another Step Toward Evisceration Of Habeas Corpus, Lisa S. Spickler
University of Richmond Law Review
As the amount of crime in this country increases, society is becoming more conscious of our criminal justice system. People are increasingly concerned with the outcome of criminal trials, specifically in assuring that crimes do not go unpunished. Determining guilt, ensuring that verdicts are not overruled on a "technicality," and issuing punishment have taken precedence over the protection of constitutional rights. However, the Constitution is not only concerned with the outcome of criminal trials. It is just as surely concerned with individual rights and process.
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Virginia Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Virginia Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal
University of Richmond Law Review
Reversing a recent trend, the past year was relatively quiet with respect to search and seizure cases. The United States Supreme Court decided two cases dealing with open fields and the curtilage of a dwelling. Dow Chemical Co. v. United States held that the open areas of an industrial plant complex with numerous plant structures spread over an area of 2,000 acres are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling for purposes of aerial surveillance; such an industrial complex "is more comparable to an open field and as such is open to the view and observation of persons in …
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …
Federal Habeas Corpus: Greater Protection For "Innocent" State Prisoners After Jackson V. Virginia, Jennie L. Montgomery
Federal Habeas Corpus: Greater Protection For "Innocent" State Prisoners After Jackson V. Virginia, Jennie L. Montgomery
University of Richmond Law Review
In Jackson v. Virginia, the Burger Court recently made an apparent "about face" with regard to the scope of powers extended to a federal habeas corpus court reviewing a state court conviction. On the basis of this ruling, habeas corpus petitioners may now demand federal court examination of whether the evidence produced at their trials was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson is, therefore, a significant step beyond the Warren Court rule that due process is violated only when the record is totally devoid of any evidence to support the conviction.
Hon. Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: Five Years On The Supreme Court: Mr. Justice Powell: An Overview, J. Harvie Wilkinson Iii
Hon. Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: Five Years On The Supreme Court: Mr. Justice Powell: An Overview, J. Harvie Wilkinson Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
In January of 1977, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., marked his fifth anniversary as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Any definitive evaluation of Justice Powell at this hopefully still early stage of his judicial service is impossible. Yet the 1975 term of Court-Powell's fifth-marked him as a Justice of great collegial impact and, in terms of his own career, saw a coming of age: an end, if you will, to the beginning.
Federal Habeas Corpus After Stone V. Powell: A Remedy Only For The Arguably Innocent?, Sam Boyte
Federal Habeas Corpus After Stone V. Powell: A Remedy Only For The Arguably Innocent?, Sam Boyte
University of Richmond Law Review
State prisoners lost several grounds for seeking federal habeas corpus relief during the Supreme Court's 1975 term. In each case, the Court was prepared to admit, at least for the purposes of argument, that there were constitutional infirmities in the state criminal process which resulted in the confinement of the prisoner; nonetheless, the Court held that the prisoner would not be permitted to attack his conviction collaterally in federal court. Because the prisoner in Francis v. Henderson had not complied with a state procedural rule requiring such challenges to be brought before trial, the Supreme Court held that he could …