Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Criminal Procedure: The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony - Rock V. Arkansas, Audrey Cooper
Criminal Procedure: The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony - Rock V. Arkansas, Audrey Cooper
Campbell Law Review
This Note discusses the nature and history of hypnosis and supports the Rock Court's holding as the correct approach. The procedural safeguards approach decreases risks associated with hypnosis that may adversely affect the reliability of a defendant's subsequent testimony and protects a defendant's constitutional right to testify in her own behalf. This approach allows a court to admit hypnotically enhanced testimony where there are indices that the testimony is reliable and advances our judicial system's search for the truth.
Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court Takes A Stance With Plain View Searches And Seizures - Arizona V. Hicks, Tonya C. Cumalander
Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court Takes A Stance With Plain View Searches And Seizures - Arizona V. Hicks, Tonya C. Cumalander
Campbell Law Review
This Note will assess the ramifications and effect of Arizona v. Hicks on existing search and seizure law and law enforcement in general. Further, it will propose and evaluate a more flexible alternative approach that the Court could have taken.
Criminal Procedure - North Carolina's New Approach To Recanted Testimony - State V. Britt, Walter L. Jones
Criminal Procedure - North Carolina's New Approach To Recanted Testimony - State V. Britt, Walter L. Jones
Campbell Law Review
This Note will discuss how other jurisdictions have attempted to deal with recanted testimony and the criticisms directed toward these methods. This Note will further discuss why the modified version of the Larrison rule, as adopted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, is immune from these same criticisms. With Britt, the court seems to have adopted Larrison's positive principles without adding fuel to the conflict that decision created.