Law Commons^™

Using Burdens Of Proof To Allocate The Risk Of Error When Assessing Developmental Maturity Of Youthful Offenders, David L. Faigman, Kelsey Geiser

William & Mary Law Review

Behavioral and neuroscientific research provides a relatively clear window into the timing of developmental maturity from adolescence to early adulthood. We know with considerable confidence that, on average, sixteen-year-olds are less developmentally mature than nineteen-year-olds, who are less developmentally mature than twenty-three-year-olds, who are less developmentally mature than twenty-six-year-olds. However, in the context of a given case, the question presented might be whether a particular seventeen-year-old defendant convicted of murder is “developmentally mature enough” that a sentence of life without parole can be constitutionally imposed on him or her. While developmental maturity can be accurately measured in group data, it …

Lifting The Veil Of Mona Lisa: A Multifaceted Investigation Of The "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" Standard, Zhuhao Wang, Eric Zhi

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

For a long period of time, the golden standard in judicial fact-finding of criminal cases in the United States and many other countries has been the “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (BARD) standard – every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless, and until, his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The BARD standard’s undergirding principle is one of error distribution, where wrongful conviction of the innocent is a much greater wrong than failed conviction of the guilty. This concept was famously expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in 1760s: “It is better …

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Hall, Eric Pack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mens Rea, Due Process And The Burden Of Proving Sanity Or Insanity, Daniel K. Spradlin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Apprendi V. New Jersey, The Scaling Back Of The Sentencing Factor Revolution And The Resurrection Of Criminal Defendant Rights, How Far Is Too Far?, Analisa Swan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory And Permissive Presumptions In Criminal Cases: The Morass Created By Allen, Shari L. Jacobson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silence As A Trial Strategy After Strickland And Cronic: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel?Nic : The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel?, Jo Ellen Silberstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that once the defendant raises a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim that turns on a question of fact, the government should have the burden of proving that the two crimes charged are actually different. Part I traces the development of the law and the major factors behind recent federal court scrutiny of the traditional rule. Part II argues that constitutional considerations require courts to shift the burden of proof to the government, not only when practical considerations suggest the shift, but in all cases turning on questions of fact. Finally, Part III reconciles this allocation with the well-established …

Scientific Statistical And Methodology And The Doctrine Of "Reasonable Doubt" In Criminal Law; (With Specific Reference To The Breath Analysis For Blood Alcohol) Empirical Fact Or Legal Ficton?, A. Burton Bass, H. Davidson Gesser, K. Stephan Mount

Dalhousie Law Journal

Lawyers pride themselves on being men of reason. After all, they postulate, it is the "reasonable man" who is enshrined at the apex of the Anglo-American legal system in the adjudication of civil disputes; it is the legally trained mind that proves so finely honed a tool in the area of problem solving in private practice; the rational decisional process is the hallmark of the judicial mind. Where the life or liberty of an individual is in contention this expert "sense" of reason is brought one step further - the criminal law, with few exceptions, will not countenance a mere …

Constitutional Law-Due Process-Burden Of Proving Insanity As Defense To Crime, Lois H. Hambro S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after having pleaded insanity as a defense to the charge. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, alleging that the Oregon statute, which required an accused pleading insanity to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it placed on him the burden of proving his inability to premeditate and intend the criminal act. The defendant relied in part on the fact that Oregon is the only state requiring insanity to be proved ''beyond a reasonable doubt," while other states require at most that …

The Theory And Practice Of Pre-Trial Procedure, Edson R. Sunderland

Michigan Law Review

Pre-trial civil procedure under the English common-law system consisted only of pleading. Whatever the rules of pleading could accomplish in the way of defining and restricting issues contributed to the efficiency of the trial. What could not be done by the rules of pleading could not be done at all.

The great weakness of pleading as a means for developing and presenting issues of fact for trial lay in its total lack of any means for testing the factual basis for the pleader's allegations and denials. They might rest upon the soundest evidence, or they might rest upon nothing at …