Law Commons^™

Interim Hearing On "Bombing Of Family Planning And Abortion Clinics", Senate Committee On Health And Human Services

California Senate

No abstract provided.

Corrections In Crisis : Report Of The Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission On Corrections, Maine Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission On Corrections

Maine Collection

Corrections In Crisis : Report of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Corrections.

Augusta, Me., The Commission, December 1985

"This Commission was funded through the 1984 Appropriations Act, P.L. 1983, Ch. 824, Pt. A."

Contents: Preamble / Summary of Recommendations / Community Corrections Recommendations / Sentencing Recommendations / Correctional Management Recommendations / Selected Legislative Issues / Conclusion

The Wood Inquiry: Special Branch - The Future?, Mark Findlay

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This article ties together the Wood Report dealing with the three Ananda Marga members convicted for conspiring to murder Robert Cameron, leader of the National Front in 1978 with the operation of the State Special Branches and ASIO.

Interim Hearing On What's Working In Dui?, Senate Select Committee On Drug And Alcohol Abuse

California Senate

No abstract provided.

11-15-1985 Preliminary Memorandum, Unknown

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

This case is curve-lined with No. 85-428, United States v. Friday. Please refer to the prelim in that case.

Interim Hearing On Clandestine Laboratories/Designer Drugs, Senate Select Committee On Drug And Alcohol Abuse

California Senate

No abstract provided.

11-02-1985 Preliminary Memorandum, Unknown

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

The SG has submitted a reply, 10/30/85, arguing that resps' contentions concerning employees hired after 1965 are irrelevant, because the SG seeks review only of the ruling that Title VII provides no remedy for post-1965 failure to remedy racial disparities in wages paid to employees hired before 1965.

Indicia Of Reliability And Face To Face Confrontation: Emerging Issues In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, Michael H. Graham

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

See No Evil? Can Insulation Of Child Sexual Abuse Victims Be Accomplished Without Endangering The Defendant's Constitutional Rights?, Wallace J. Mlyniec, Michelle M. Dally

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diagnostic Evaluations And The Use Of Videotapes In Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Kee Macfarlane

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Commission On Crime And Punishment 1985 Annual Report, California Commission On Crime And Punishment

California Agencies

The 1985 California Commission on Crime and Punishment, through statewide hearings, has had the unique opportunity to study the criminal justice system from the perspective of victims and law enforcement. The findings and conclusions of this bipartisan commission are contained in this report.

The Child Witness: The Progress And Emerging Limitations, Lucy Berliner

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Other Crimes Evidence To Prove The Corpus Delicti Of A Child Sexual Offense, Amber Donner-Froelich

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Competency Requirement For The Child Victim Of Sexual Abuse: Must We Abandon It?, Robin W. Morey

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Child Sexual Assault: Children's Memory And The Law, Gail S. Goodman, Vicki S. Helgeson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony In Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Rebecca J. Roe

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Wilkey's Contributions To Criminal Law, Donald B. Ayer

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: The Current State Of The Art, Michael H. Graham

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Background And Overview Of Child Sexual Abuse Law Reforms In The Mid-1980'S, Josephine Bulkley

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The District Attorney As A Mobilizer In A Community Approach To Child Sexual Abuse, Robert E. Cramer Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

10-30-1985 Preliminary Memorandum, Karl S. Coplan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

SUMMARY: Petrs challenge rulings by the dc, affirmed by CA4 1) that differentials between wages paid to white and black employees of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (NCAES) did not constitute employment discrimination; 2) that maintenance of local 4-H clubs that are voluntarily segregated does not violate the Title VI prohibition against discrimination in programs receiving federal aid; and 3) that the NCAES did not discriminate against blacks in selecting county extension chairmen.

10-30-1985 Justice O'Connor, Per Curiam, Sandra Day O'Connor

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer's conviction on the grounds that the admission of the opinion testimony of the prosecution's expert witness, who was unable to recall the basis for his opinion, denied respondent his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. 493 A. 2d. 959 (1985). We conclude that the Delaware Supreme Court misconstrued the Confrontation Clause as interpreted by the decisions of this Court.

10-29-1985 Correspondence From Marshall To O'Connor, Thurgood Marshall

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

Dear Sandra:

Please add the following to your Per Curiam:

JUSTICE MARSHALL dissents from this summary disposition, which has been ordered without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs on the merits. See Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U.S. 111, 120- 121 (1983) (MARSHALL, J ., dissenting); Wyrick v. Fields, 459 u.s. 42, 51- 52 (1982) (MARSHALL, dissenting).

10-22-1985 Correspondence From Blackmun To O'Connor, Harry A. Blackmun

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

Dear Sandra:

My original inclination was to hold this case for No. 84-1279, Delaware v. Van Arsdall. That is still my inclination.

You now have six votes, however, for your proposed per curiam. Would you please note at the end of your opinion:

"JUSTICE BLACKMUN would grant certiorari and give this case plenary consideration."

10-22-1985 Justice O'Connor, Per Curiam, Sandra Day O'Connor

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer's conviction on the grounds that the admission of the opinion testimony of the prosecution's expert witness, who was unable to recall the basis for his opinion, denied respondent his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. 493 A. 2d. 959 (1985). We conclude that the Delaware Supreme Court misconstrued the Confrontation Clause as interpreted by the decisions of this Court.

10-21-1985 Correspondence From Brennan To O'Connor, William J. Brennan

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

Dear Sandra,

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my letter. I am happy to join your opinion with your suggested changes. I very much appreciate your consideration.

10-21-1985 Correspondence From Powell To O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

Dear Sandra:

I agree with your Per Curiam.

Bill Brennan's suggestions may be helpful. But my join is not conditioned on your acceptance of them.

10-21-1985 Correspondence From O'Connor To Brennan, Sandra Day O'Connor

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

I think your concerns may be satisfied by the following revisions to the circulating draft, which I am willing to make if they are satisfactory to you:

10-21-1985 Correspondence From White To O'Connor, Byron R. White

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

Dear Sandra,

Please join me.

10-21-1985 Correspondence From O'Connor To Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985)

You describe Agent Robillard's testimony as involving "an implied prior representation of which the declarant disclaims present knowledge," on the grounds that his qualification as an expert implied that "he had a valid reason for reaching that conclusion at the time of his investigation." But the question reserved in Green involved an express prior representation specifically introduced by
the prosecution as substantive evidence. I see nothing in our cases that would justify embarking on the difficult and questionable enterprise of deciding when there has been an implied representation. In any event, in this case, Agent Robillard openly admitted at voir …