Digital Commons Network^™

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

Multiple Representation Meltdown: Penn State Three Case Illustrates Entity Representation Pitfalls For Both Criminal Defense Counsel And Prosecutors - And The Need For Systemic State Law Reforms, Lance Cole

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1982, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Williams, wherein the court held that a defendant charged with rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) cannot use a mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s consent. The court relied on the reasoning that a defendant’s mens rea is not an element of either rape or IDSI. Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, however, requires that where the legislature has failed to expressly require a finding of mens rea in the text of the statute, at least recklessness must be imputed to each material element.

This Comment …

It’S All Your Fault!: Examining The Defendant’S Use Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel As A Means Of Getting A “Second Bite At The Apple.”, Prentice L. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States Constitution provides individuals convicted of a crime with “a second bite at the apple.” The Sixth Amendment provides an avenue to appeal one’s conviction based on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” What were the Framers’ true intentions in using the phrase “effective assistance of counsel”? How does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 affect habeas corpus appeals? This article answers these questions through the eyes of Thomas—a fictional character who is appealing his murder conviction.

This article first looks at the history surrounding effective assistance of counsel and discusses the difficulties …

Closing Direct Appeal To Ineffectiveness Claims: The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania's Denial Of State Constitutional Rights, Thomas M. Place

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Post Conviction Developments, Thomas M. Place

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Revoking Our Privileges: Federal Law Enforcement’S Multi-Front Assault On The Attorney-Client Privilege (And Why It Is Misguided), Lance Cole

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Fifth Amendment And Compelled Production Of Personal Documents After United States V. Hubbel - New Protection For Private Papers, Lance Cole

Faculty Scholarly Works

This Article addresses a long-unresolved issue in criminal and constitutional law: Does the Fifth Amendment provide any protection against compelled production of incriminating personal documents in the possession of an individual who is a subject or target of a criminal investigation? The Supreme Court has not definitively addressed this important question, and the case law reflects deep disagreement on an issue of great significance to criminal law enforcement. The issue has been unresolved since 1976, when the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in Fisher v. United States and held that the privilege does …

Appellate Determinacy: The Sentencing Philosophy Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit, Gary S. Gildin

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.