Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 18 U.S.C. § 249 (1)
- Amish (1)
- Amish -- Legal status and laws etc. (1)
- Causation (Criminal law) -- Standards (1)
- Confrontation rule (1)
-
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Crime analysis (1)
- Criminal law -- Interpretation & construction (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Criminal records (1)
- Domestic violence cases (1)
- Etc. (1)
- Expunged convictions (1)
- Expungement (1)
- Ferguson (1)
- Forfeiture (1)
- Giles v. California (1)
- HCPA (1)
- Hate crime analysis (1)
- Hate crimes (1)
- Hate crimes -- United States -- Religious aspects (1)
- IND. R. EVID. 609(a) (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- Indiana (1)
- Justice Reinvestment Act (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (1)
- Michael Brown (1)
- Myrna Raeder (1)
- Police violence (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Method Of Attack: A Supplemental Model For Hate Crime Analysis, Angela D. Moore
Method Of Attack: A Supplemental Model For Hate Crime Analysis, Angela D. Moore
Indiana Law Journal
On October 28, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Two years later, between September and November of 2011, members of a Bergholz, Ohio, Amish community allegedly carried out five attacks in which they forcibly restrained, and cut the hair and beards of, members of other Amish communities. In September of 2012, a jury rendered a verdict in United States v. Mullet and found sixteen members of the Bergholz community—including Samuel Mullet, bishop of the community—guilty of HCPA violations. These were the first convictions for religion-based …
Are Indiana’S Newly Expunged Convictions Still Available For Impeachment?, Graham Polando
Are Indiana’S Newly Expunged Convictions Still Available For Impeachment?, Graham Polando
Indiana Law Journal
During trial, a litigant can, of course, impeach a witness with certain criminal convictions. However, Indiana Evidence Rule 609(c), like its federal counterpart, prohibits parties from introducing such evidence when “the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated . . . .” Indiana, however, has no procedure for annulment or certificates of rehabilitation—and, until recently, had nothing resembling one.
To some fanfare, the General Assembly has recently enacted an expungement provision. As courts begin to grant these expungements, it is only …
Forfeiture Of Confrontation Rights And The Complicated Dynamics Of Domestic Violence: Some Thoughts Inspired By Myrna Raeder, Aviva A. Orenstein
Forfeiture Of Confrontation Rights And The Complicated Dynamics Of Domestic Violence: Some Thoughts Inspired By Myrna Raeder, Aviva A. Orenstein
Articles by Maurer Faculty
In this essay and memorial to my friend and colleague, Myrna Raeder, I examine forfeiting the right of confrontation in the context of domestic violence cases. In 2004, Crawford v. Washington the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Sixth Amendment, requiring that for “testimonial statements” to be offered against the accused, the speaker must appear in court, or, if unavailable, must have been subject to cross-examination previously. The practical effect of Crawford was to exclude many out-of-court statements that had previously been admissible. Nowhere was the effect of Crawford more striking than in domestic violence cases, where victims often make …
Police Violence And Ferguson: (En)Racing Criminal Procedure, Jeannine Bell
Police Violence And Ferguson: (En)Racing Criminal Procedure, Jeannine Bell
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Emergence From Civil Death: The Evolution Of Expungement In West Virginia, Valena Beety, Michael Aloi, Evan Johns
Emergence From Civil Death: The Evolution Of Expungement In West Virginia, Valena Beety, Michael Aloi, Evan Johns
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Ninety-two million Americans have a criminal record—nearly one in three adults. This criminal record can include an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, a conviction for which the person did not serve time in prison, or a conviction for a nonviolent crime. All can have a similar impact on an individual’s job prospects and on local economies. Incarcerating adult Americans costs a combined $68 billion annually at the local, state, and federal levels. The cost of lost wages and lost financial contributions to society by ex-offenders is even higher.
This financially immobilized population of former offenders may be …