Law Commons^™

Proposed Rule Of Evidence 609: Impeachment Of Criminal Defendants By Prior Convictions, D. Joseph Hurson

Washington Law Review

This comment describes current Washington law on the use of criminal convictions to impeach the testimony of criminal defendants and examines the factors which are relevant to the formation of a more acceptable rule. Adoption of the proposed rule would also affect the rules for impeaching nondefendant witnesses. Only a criminal defendant, however, is in jeopardy of actually being convicted as a result of a jury's misuse of evidence of prior convictions. Because the interests of the criminal defendant witness will be so drastically affected by the prior conviction rule which the Washington Supreme Court ultimately adopts, this comment will …

Women's Self-Defense Under Washington Law—State V. Wanrow, 88 Wn. 2d 221, 559 P.2d 548 (1977), Jennifer Marsh

Washington Law Review

The Washington Supreme Court, in State v. Wanrow, examined the issue of self-defense for women under Washington law and held that the application of traditional self-defense rules resulted in prejudicial treatment of women defendants. This note will examine the meaning of the Wanrow decision and offer support for its holding in light of available psychological and sociological data. Additionally, this note will suggest a special analytical framework utilizing social science data to test accepted legal doctrines for latent sex discrimination. The importance of these data in exposing such discrimination will be shown by examining related cases in the area of …

The Influence Of Jury Deliberation On Juror Perception Of Trial, Credibility, And Damage Awards, S. Femi Sonaike

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Morrissey, the Court set the level of due process needed in parole revocations. Specifically, it held that the parolee facing •revocation has a right (a) to receive written notice of the claimed parole violations; (b) to hear the evidence against him; (c) to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation); (e) to have a neutral and detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) to be given …

Impeachment Of One's Own Witness By Prior Inconsistent Statements Under The Federal And Arkansas Rules Of Evidence, Samuel A. Perroni

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Counsel In Police Interrogation Cases: Miranda And Williams, Mitchell Leibson Chyette

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will consider some of the theoretical and practical ramifications of the Williams decision and compare its protections to the protections offered by Miranda. The article, focussing on the right to counsel, discusses the nature of the police conduct which is prohibited by each decision, the time at which the protections involved become effective, and the standard by which a waiver of the rights will be measured. The article concludes that there may be significant differences in the application of the two cases and that a uniform rule based on the sixth amendment may be superior to the …

The Constitutionality Of Michigan's Guilty But Mentally Ill Verdict, John M. Grostic

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will assess the constitutionality of the statute providing for a GBMI verdict by examining the likely, impact of this statute on the constitutional rights of legally insane defendants. Part I will briefly outline the relevant provisions of the GBMI statute. Part II will consider whether legally insane defendants have a constitutional right to an insanity defense. Part III will then argue that some defendants, though legally insane at the time they committed allegedly criminal acts, will nevertheless be found GBMI rather than NGRI.

Michigan V. Defillippo, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Dunaway V. New York, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Duren V. Missouri, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Burks V. Lasker, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Smith V. Maryland, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Jackson V. Virginia, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Parker V. Randolph, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Truth By Ordeal: The Growing Acceptance Of Polygraphy, William E. Ploss

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Equitable Treatment Of Unauthorized Prosecutorial Promises Of Immunity, Sherry Perkins Bartley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To An In Camera Voluntariness Hearing: State V. Sanders, Ellen Carle Lilly

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure-Double Jeopardy-Government's Right To Appeal A Midtrial Dismissal- United States V. Scott

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Calculation Of Time Credits For Texas Prisoners., Deborah A. Becker

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Manson V. Brathwaite: Looking For The Silver Lining In The Area Of Eyewitness Identifications

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

An End To Ransom: The Case For Amending The Bail Provision Of The Florida Constitution, Bennett H. Brummer, Bruce S. Rogow

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Step Toward Uniformity: Review Of Life Sentences In Capital Cases, Ron Bergwerk

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bordenkircher V. Hayes: Prosecutorial Discretion During Plea Bargaining, Alan M. Wishnoff

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Particularity And Precision In Texas Indictments And Informations: What Is Fundamental Defect., David Weiner

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Due Process Not Violated When Prosecutor Carries Out Threat To Reindict Accused On More Serious Charges After Plea Bargain On Original Charge Is Refused., Mary Byrd Hover

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Probation May Be Granted Prior To Conviction Under Article 42.12, Section 3d Of The Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure Without Violating Article Iv, Section 11a Of The Texas Constitution., Robert C. White

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Criminal Procedure—Preservation Of Due Process When Evidence Is Destroyed Or Tested—State V. Wright, 87 Wn. 2d 783, 557 P.2d 1 (1976), Maxine Stansell

Washington Law Review

The purpose of this note is to identify uncertainties in the future application of the Wright rule and to predict their probable resolution. Analysis of Wright and the cases on which it relies leads to the conclusion that failure to use the notice-petition procedure before disposition or testing of evidence will result in sanctions only if the defense can show that evidence destroyed, or chemically changed in testing, was potentially material, and only if the state is unable to show that the failure to preserve was reasonable. In addition, the Wright rule implies a defense right to observe or participate …

The Interstate Agreement On Detainers: Defining The Federal Role, Janet R. Necessary

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1970, Congress enacted into law the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, making the United States and the District of Columbia parties to the interstate compact already adopted by 37 states.' The purpose of the Agreement is to "encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition" of charges underlying detainers by providing procedures by which prisoners may request disposition of such charges and prosecuting jurisdictions may obtain the presence of prisoners for trial. Recently problems of interpretation have surfaced as the federal courts have endeavored to define the role of the United States under the Agreement. The courts of appeals presently disagree …

Recent Cases, Daniel P. Smith, R. Michael Moore

Vanderbilt Law Review

Courts Split on the Necessity of Separate Authorization for a Covert Entry Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

Daniel Paul Smith

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,' which regulates the use of electronic surveillance, was designed to protect "the privacy of wire and oral communications,"and to delineate "on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized."' In general, communications may be intercepted only by law enforcement officers, who are engaged in the investigation of …

Weatherford V. Bursey, George Robert Dittrich

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.