Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Role Of United States V. Cooley And Mcgirt V. Oklahoma In Determining Criminal Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Prof. Dustin Jansen
The Role Of United States V. Cooley And Mcgirt V. Oklahoma In Determining Criminal Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Prof. Dustin Jansen
Tribal Law Journal
Understanding jurisdiction is paramount to deciding whether federal, state, or tribal courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes committed in Indian country. The evolution of federal Indian law has created a legal landscape that is far from consistent. For the Indian law practitioner, it is important to stay abreast of the latest case law available to understand where proper jurisdiction lies. The latest cases of McGirt v. Oklahoma and United States v. Cooley are the newest case law available that demonstrate the Supreme Court’s reasoning and analysis in determining proper jurisdiction.
The United States Supreme Court’S Enduring Misunderstanding Of Insanity, David Dematteo, Daniel A. Krauss, Sarah Fishel, Kellie Wiltsie
The United States Supreme Court’S Enduring Misunderstanding Of Insanity, David Dematteo, Daniel A. Krauss, Sarah Fishel, Kellie Wiltsie
New Mexico Law Review
Within mental health law, the legal defense of insanity has received a disproportionate amount of attention. Classified as a legal excuse, the insanity defense generally negates legal blameworthiness for criminal defendants who successfully prove that at the time of the offense, they did not know right from wrong or were unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, due to an underlying mental health condition. The insanity defense has a lengthy history in the United States, with several different formulations and numerous court decisions addressing various aspects of the defense. Despite its firm entrenchment in U.S. criminal …