Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (8)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (2)
- Pepperdine University (2)
- University of Michigan Law School (2)
-
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- Selected Works (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 26 of 26
Full-Text Articles in Law
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti
William & Mary Law Review Online
In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 170-year-old dual-sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine permits both the federal and state governments—as “separate sovereigns”—to each prosecute a defendant for the same offense. Justice Thomas concurred with the majority opinion in Gamble, but wrote separately to reject the traditional stare decisis formulation. In particular, the factors the majority used to evaluate stare decisis, in his view, amount to nothing more than marbles placed subjectively on either side of the stare decisis balancing scale. He would have preferred, instead, an inquiry into whether the precedent was demonstrably erroneous as an original matter, …
Matter Of Baim V. Eidens, Evan M. Zuckerman
A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Right And Double Jeopardy In Contempt Cases, Saba Khan
A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Right And Double Jeopardy In Contempt Cases, Saba Khan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Christopher L. Tuttle, U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 13-12310-A, Daniel A. Horwitz
Brief Of Christopher L. Tuttle, U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 13-12310-A, Daniel A. Horwitz
Daniel A. Horwitz
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy: A Resentencing Game, Deirdre Cicciaro
Double Jeopardy: A Resentencing Game, Deirdre Cicciaro
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Deal Is A Deal: Plea Bargains And Double Jeopardy After Ohio V. Johnson, Philip Chinn
A Deal Is A Deal: Plea Bargains And Double Jeopardy After Ohio V. Johnson, Philip Chinn
Seattle University Law Review
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person will “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” On March 10, 2004, Pedro Cabrera made a statement that cost him fourteen years of his life: he proclaimed his innocence. The court accepted this plea and ordered a finding of guilty with a recommended sentence of six years. However, during an exchange that followed, Mr. Cabrera asserted that he was actually innocent but that he preferred “to take the time” instead of proceeding to trial. The judge then refused to accept Mr. Cabrera’s guilty …
The Government's Right To Appeal In Criminal Cases - A Procedural Question, Curtis L. Muncy
The Government's Right To Appeal In Criminal Cases - A Procedural Question, Curtis L. Muncy
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy Violations As "Plain Error" Under Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 52(B), Gabriel J. Chin
Double Jeopardy Violations As "Plain Error" Under Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 52(B), Gabriel J. Chin
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
I’Ll Take “Improper Declarations Of Mistrial” For $2,000.00: Applying The Protection Against Double Jeopardy - Robar V. Labuda, Daniel Fier
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Developing A State Constitutional Law Strategy In New Mexico Criminal Prosecutions, J. Thomas Sullivan
Developing A State Constitutional Law Strategy In New Mexico Criminal Prosecutions, J. Thomas Sullivan
Faculty Scholarship
This article includes a review of the process by which the New Mexico courts have developed an independent state constitutional jurisprudence reflecting more expansive protections of individual rights than those afforded by the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It addresses the existing body of state constitutional law and suggests possibilities for further developments, including both the substantive aspects of state constitutional topics and the procedural requirements for asserting state constitutional protections as alternative sources for protection of individual rights. It documents how far New Mexico has come in developing a state constitutional …
Double Jeopardy: “Twice In Jeopardy”, Paul C. Giannelli
Double Jeopardy: “Twice In Jeopardy”, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy: “Same Offense”, Paul C. Giannelli
Double Jeopardy: “Same Offense”, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Broken Promises And Involuntary Confessions: May A State Introduce Incriminating Statements Made By A Defendant As A Result Of Promises In A Plea Bargain Agreement If The Defendant Breaches That Agreement?, Bradford Mank
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
There is a substantial constitutional question concerning whether admissions made pursuant to a plea bargain that the defendant has breached are admissible under the fifth amendment's privilege against compelled self-incrimination or the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Courts have reached conflicting results in regard to whether such statements are voluntary.lo This Article argues that it is difficult to resolve whether such admissions are voluntary because courts have not provided a clear definition as to under what circumstances a confession is voluntary in accordance with the dictates of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
Scholarly Works
This article examines the effect of Oregon v. Kennedy on the Burger Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence in cases where government misconduct has interfered with the integrity of a first trial. The article proposes the complete elimination of current distinctions between mistrial and appellate reversal cases for double jeopardy analysis, on the ground that those distinctions no longer have intellectual or practical support. Moreover, against the contention of the Court in Oregon v. Kennedy that any test for overreaching necessarily would be standardless, this article proposes the adoption of a "plain error" standard. Under this test, "plain" government error, engaged in …
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
During the 1960s, the Warren Court's decisions in the field of criminal procedure were strongly denounced by many prosecutors, police officers, and conservative politicians. Some of these critics were careful in their description of the Warren Court's record. Others let their strong opposition to several of the Court's more highly publicized decisions destroy their perception of the Court's work as a whole.
An Application Of Double Jeopardy And Collateral Estoppel Principles To Successive Prison Disciplinary And Criminal Prosecutions, Joseph S. Colussi
An Application Of Double Jeopardy And Collateral Estoppel Principles To Successive Prison Disciplinary And Criminal Prosecutions, Joseph S. Colussi
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
I start in Section I of this Article with an examination of the first major theme of the criminal procedure decisions of the Warren Court, the selective incorporation of Bill of Rights' guarantees into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. My conclusion is that the selective incorporation principle, which provided the doctrinal basis for many of the "liberal" decisions of the Warren Court, remains firmly established today under the Burger Court. Section II of the Article then analyzes the theme of equality and the role it played in Warren Court decisions in the criminal procedure area. It is …
United States V. Anderson - The Plea Bargain As An Agreement To Become And To Remain Convicted
United States V. Anderson - The Plea Bargain As An Agreement To Become And To Remain Convicted
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law - Double Jeopardy - State Prosecution Barred After Federal Prosecution For Same Offense - Burden On State To Show Substantially Different Interests From Those Of Initial Prosecuting Jurisdiction, Ronald J. Examitas
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy And Dual Sovereignty: The Impact Of Benton V. Maryland On Successive Prosecution For The Same Offense By State And Federal Governments, Richard D. Boyle
Double Jeopardy And Dual Sovereignty: The Impact Of Benton V. Maryland On Successive Prosecution For The Same Offense By State And Federal Governments, Richard D. Boyle
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Res Judicata And Double Jeopardy In Indiana Criminal Procedure
Res Judicata And Double Jeopardy In Indiana Criminal Procedure
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Improper Discharge Of Jury Before Verdict As Double Jeopardy, C. L. C.
Improper Discharge Of Jury Before Verdict As Double Jeopardy, C. L. C.
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.