Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adultery (1)
- Alford plea (1)
- Cleveland v. United States (1)
- Commerce clause (1)
- Criminal law (1)
-
- Critique of Alford pleadings (1)
- DOJ (1)
- Federal jurisdiction (1)
- Federal prosecution (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Hill v. McKinley (1)
- Judicial notice (1)
- Jury instructions (1)
- Limits of federal government (1)
- Mail fraud statutes (1)
- Missouri tort of alienation (1)
- Parallel investigation and proceedings (1)
- Plea bargaining (1)
- Property (1)
- Qualified immunity (1)
- Right to privacy (1)
- Rule 201(g) (1)
- SEC (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Plea Best Not Taken: Why Criminal Defendants Should Avoid The Alford Plea, A, Bryan H. Ward
Plea Best Not Taken: Why Criminal Defendants Should Avoid The Alford Plea, A, Bryan H. Ward
Missouri Law Review
After examining the North Carolina v. Alford decision in detail, this Article will first look at the broad arguments in favor of this type of plea. This Article will then focus on the body of case law dealing with the Alford plea and its effect on sentencing, probation and parole. While examining these cases this Article will also focus on the variety of arguments offered by criminal defendants who contend that it is impermissible to require an Alford-type defendant to express remorse for the offense or admit to the offense in any other context. This Article will conclude by reevaluating …
We Didn't Know Any Better Defense: The Eighth Circuit's View Of Qualified Immunity For Jail Officers Who Detain Arrestees - Hill V. Mckinley, The, William E. Roberts
We Didn't Know Any Better Defense: The Eighth Circuit's View Of Qualified Immunity For Jail Officers Who Detain Arrestees - Hill V. Mckinley, The, William E. Roberts
Missouri Law Review
The Supreme Court has imparted the old common-law immunity to law-enforcement officers in actions for violations of constitutional rights. Defendants no longer have to stand trial on a federal claim for damages based on their unconstitutional actions unless a court has previously established with sufficient clarity and particularity that such actions are indeed a constitutional violation. Through examination of Hill v. McKinley, this Note argues that "qualified immunity" is beginning to be extended beyond its intended use.
Trust Me, I'M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I'M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Missouri Law Review
This Article contends that the predominant practice of federal courts of completely removing the jurisdictional element from the jury violates the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial and Rule 201. Part II of this Article discusses the problems raised by binding judicial notice of the jurisdictional element of federal criminal offenses. Part III gives an overview of the factual, constitutional, and statutory prerequisites for land to fall within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Part IV briefly describes the circumstances in which courts may properly take judicial notice under Rule 201. Part V discusses the requirements for judicial …
Misguided Federalism, Peter J. Henning
Misguided Federalism, Peter J. Henning
Missouri Law Review
Federalism has moved to the forefront of constitutional analysis in recent years as a narrow majority of the Supreme Court has begun to rein in congressional assertions of authority to legislate in areas viewed as beyond the constitutional grant of power to the federal government. One means of curtailing congressional authority is by enforcing limits on the Commerce Clause, perhaps the broadest of Congress’s regulatory powers. In United States v. Lopez, the Court sent a “constitutional wake-up call” making clear that it would no longer acquiesce in every congressional enactment purportedly adopted as an exercise of the commerce power when …
Hey, That's My Wife - The Tort Of Alienation Of Affection In Missouri - Thornburg V. Federal Express Corp., Bruce V. Nguyen
Hey, That's My Wife - The Tort Of Alienation Of Affection In Missouri - Thornburg V. Federal Express Corp., Bruce V. Nguyen
Missouri Law Review
The tort of alienation of affection was first recognized in New York in 1866 and was eventually adopted by almost every jurisdiction in the United States. Missouri had recognized the tort as early as 1881 and continues to recognize it to this day. Most jurisdictions, however, have subsequently abolished the action either judicially or by statute. This Note will first present the facts and holding of the instant case, Thornburg v. Federal Express Corp. It will then provide the legal background by briefly discussing the history of the tort of alienation of affection, the related tort of criminal conversation in …
And Into The Maelstrom Steps The United States Supreme Court: Licenses Are Not Property For Purposes Of The Mail Fraud Statute - Cleveland V. United States, Hadi S. Al-Shathir
And Into The Maelstrom Steps The United States Supreme Court: Licenses Are Not Property For Purposes Of The Mail Fraud Statute - Cleveland V. United States, Hadi S. Al-Shathir
Missouri Law Review
This Note will begin by providing a summary of the fact surrounding Cleveland v. United States. Following this synopsis is a brief discussion of the mail fraud statute, the property dilemma arising under the mail fraud statute, and issues relating to the federalization of crime. This Note will conclude by exploring the federalism implication of the Supreme Court’s holding in Cleveland v. United States, licenses are not property for purposes of the mail fraud statue.
Sec/Doj Parallel Proceedings: Contemplating The Propriety Of Recent Judicial Trends, Mark D. Hunter
Sec/Doj Parallel Proceedings: Contemplating The Propriety Of Recent Judicial Trends, Mark D. Hunter
Missouri Law Review
The Article examines the simultaneous civil investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and criminal investigation by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) through the United States Attorney’s Office regarding alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Part II of this Article introduces traditional authority, both statutory and case law, for the SEC and DOJ to conduct parallel proceedings. Part III briefly describes the SEC’s methods and procedures for gathering and sharing information with the DOJ. Part IV describes the rights and privileges afforded to suspects, while Part V describes the rights and privileges that suspects are not …