Law Commons^™

Book Review: Psychiatric Justice, Alice M. Batchelder

Akron Law Review

In an era in which extensive judicial emphasis has been placed on "due process of law" in criminal proceedings, both in the federal courts and in the state courts, Dr. Szasz's book serves as a jarring reminder that in at least one vital area of the concept of due process, much remains to be done. The emerging definition of due process has enunciated the rights guaranteed the individual by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and viewed within that framework, this book, although published in 1965, remains particularly timely, for Szasz, speaking as a psychiatrist, endeavors to demonstrate how …

Denial Of Speedy Trial - Mandamus For Dismissal: Smith V. Hooey, Charles F. Brumbach

Akron Law Review

The Court reasoned that the timely assertion by defendant-petitioner of his constitutional right to a speedy trial gave rise to a corresponding duty on the part of the state to bring him to trial without undue delay.The Court rejected the state's argument that Texas was, in this instance, free from Sixth Amendment constraints, observing that this argument was based on an erroneous conception of the nature of comity.

Given the recognized right to a speedy trial, and given the corresponding duty on the part of the state to affirmatively secure that constitutional right, the breach of such a duty will …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti

Akron Law Review

"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph, Edward P. Mazak

Akron Law Review

In some joint criminal trials the right of one defendant to refrain from self incrimination may come into conflict with the right of another defendant to confront the witnesses against him. The problem arises when one defendant refuses to testify at trial after having made a voluntary, out of court statement which tends to implicate a second defendant. The rules of evidence allow the statement to be introduced at trial only against the party making it; its use against the implicated defendant is excluded as hearsay.' The rules also provide for the court to instruct the jury on the limited …

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Multiple Representation; Cuyler V. Sullivan, Howard S. Essner

Akron Law Review

In Cuyler v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court finally resolved two important issues in the areas of criminal law and the sixth amendment right to counsel. In this case, the Court is faced with a situation with which it has dealt but twice before: joint representation of criminal defendants. Cuyler represents the culmination of the legal inquiry into the problems inherent whenever a single attorney represents more than one defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Use Of Prior Uncounseled Convictions; Lewis V. United States And Baldasar V. Illinois, Rita Marks

Akron Law Review

Once again the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of the right to counsel. Within three months the Court rendered two decisions which appear to be inconsistent, not only with one another, but with prior decisions of the Court

Sixth Amendment, Televising Trials, Chandler V. Florida, Paul A. Patterson

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court recently handed down a unanimous decision dealing with the respective rights of the press and defendants in regard to the televising of criminal trials. The case, Chandler v. Florida, while explicitly stated to be consistent with the Court's earlier decision in Estes v. Texas, has expanded the realm of media coverage of criminal trials beyond what apparently was permissible under Estes. The Court attempted to balance the competing constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the sixth amendment right to a fair trial. It held that while the presence of television cameras in …

The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Quandry: The Debate Continues Strickland V. Washington, Susan K. Vanburen

Akron Law Review

In recent years, dissatisfied criminal defendants have increasingly resorted to claims alleging actual ineffectiveness of counsel as a vehicle for challenging their convictions. Prior to Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court had not delineated the "proper standards" for reviewing claims of actual ineffectiveness of counsel. The lack of a national standard for assessing defense counsel's performance, as it relates to the constitutional requirement, generated extensive deliberation by lower courts and commentators. Faced with a deluge of actual ineffectiveness claims, the lower courts were forced to formulate standards to distinguish effective from ineffective assistance. However, the ensuing diverse standards employed …

Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg

Akron Law Review

Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.