Law Commons^™

Due Process Considerations In Police Showup Practices, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice In Extremis: Administration Of Justice During The April 1968 Chicago Disorder, Mark N. Aaronson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Interstate Rendition: Rights And Remedies Of The Accused Seeking Asylum In Massachusetts, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The subject of Interstate Rendition is one of conspicuous unfamiliarity to the average Massachusetts lawyer. Yet, as this article indicates, the rendition hearing presents a valuable opportunity to alert defense counsel to assist the accused at a critical stage of the criminal proceeding. The author, a graduate of Harvard Law School is presently law clerk to United States District Judge Sara/h T. Hughes of the Northern District of Texas. He formerly served as Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General where he presided at numerous rendition hearings conducted by the Department of the Attorney General for the Governor.

Jury Consideration Of Parole, Fernand N. Dutile

Journal Articles

Under our system of criminal justice, a jury faces two basic decisions: the determination of guilt and, in many cases, the selection of an appropriate penalty for the convicted. In both instances the jurors' impressions of the parole system could be crucial. For example, the jury's notion—correct or incorrect—that the defendant will be eligible for parole very quickly if sentenced to prison may cause it to compromise on the issue of guilt. In cases where the jury has discretion in setting the penalty, this notion may seduce it into selecting the death penalty over life imprisonment.

There are additional problems …

"Uncontrollable" Actions And The Eighth Amendment: Implications Of Powell V. Texas, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

No questions of criminal justice are more fundamental than the bases for imposing criminal punishment, yet the Federal Constitution says nothing explicit about them. It is, therefore, understandable that the increasing limitations imposed by constitutional interpretation upon procedures for ascertaining criminal guilt have not been accompanied by similar limits upon principles of criminal responsibility. That the difference in treatment is understandable does not, of course, necessarily mean it has been justified.

When the Court struck down a law punishing addiction in Robinson v. California in 1962, it was still unclear whether it was willing to become significantly implicated in developing …