Law Commons^™

Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will attempt to distill from this confusion a meaningful double jeopardy policy, applicable to parallel civil and criminal proceedings, that takes into account the history of double jeopardy, recent changes in statutory law, and the contemporary chaotic state of parallel civil and criminal proceedings. Under current law, double jeopardy protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. This Article will show that the multiple punishments prong has little basis in law, other than reliance …

Product Liability Law In The Federal Arena, Sherman Joyce

Seattle University Law Review

The law of product liability has been created by state judges and legislatures. Although not widely noticed, this tradition changed when Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. That legislation established an eighteen-year statute of repose for claims brought by non-commercial passengers injured or killed in accidents involving light aircraft. Until that time, product liability law had been exclusively a function of state law. Nevertheless, product liability reform legislation has been the subject of extensive examination and scrutiny by Members of the United States Congress for one and a half decades. This Article analyzes the constitutional underpinnings for …

The Denial Of A State Constitutional Right To Bail In Juvenile Proceedings: The Need For Reassessment In Washington State, Kathleen A. Baldi

Seattle University Law Review

Article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution states that "[a]ll persons charged with crimes shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident, or the presumption great." Despite seemingly unequivocal language that this constitutional provision is applicable to "all persons," the Washington Supreme Court, in Estes v. Hopp, declared that juveniles do not have a constitutional right to bail. The Estes court engaged in little constitutional analysis, but instead, reasoned that juvenile proceedings are civil in nature and that article 1, section 20 applies only in criminal proceedings. Central to the Estes …

Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge

Seattle University Law Review

The prohibition against double jeopardy is of ancient lineage in western civilization. In a ringing and scholarly dissent that rewards reflection, Justice Hugo Black said:

Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization. Its roots run deep into Greek and Roman times. Even in the Dark Ages, when so many other principles of justice were lost, the idea that one trial and one punishment were enough remained alive through the canon law and the teachings of the early Christian writers. By the thirteenth century …

The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin

Seattle University Law Review

Over the past decade, the government has escalated its "war on drugs." Although the "war" has not decreased drug use or limited the availability of drugs on the street, the government continues to sacrifice the constitutional rights of its citizens in an effort to escalate the hostility. Since the "zero tolerance" policy of the Reagan Administration, the government has relied heavily on the forfeiture of property related to drug crimes as a tool to deter and punish the illegal distribution of drugs. The federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881, allows the government to seize any property used to facilitate …

When The Constable Blunders: A Comparison Of The Law Of Police Interrogation In Canada And The United States, Robert Harvie, Hamar Foster

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in limiting police interrogations and compares its case decisions with cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II of this Article examines the purposes and policies underlying sections 10(b), 7, and 24(2) of the Charter. Part III then examines the application of sections 10(b) and 7 in situations where (1) suspects are interrogated by uniformed police officers or other persons known to be in authority, and (2) suspects are interrogated surreptitiously by persons not known to be in authority. In both …

Toward A Pragmatic Model Of Judicial Decisionmaking: Why Tort Law Provides A Better Framework Than Constitutional Law For Deciding The Issue Of Medical Futility, Brent D. Lloyd

Seattle University Law Review

Recognizing that courts will eventually have to confront the issue of medical futility, this Comment argues that there is no principled basis for omitting these difficult questions from a legal analysis of the issue and that courts should therefore decide the issue in a manner that honestly confronts them. Specifically, the argument advanced here is that courts confronted with cases of medical futility should decide the issue under principles of tort law, rather than under principles of constitutional law. The crux of this argument is that tort principles provide an open-ended analytical framework conducive to considering troublesome questions like those …