Law Commons^™

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department, People V. Taylor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …

A Trial Court's Refusal To Question Prospective Jurors About The Specific Contents Of Pretrial Publicity Which They Had Read Or Heard Did Not Violate A Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury, Or Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process., Karen A. Cusenbary

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Mu'Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask jurors about the potential influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity. A defendant may ask only if the jurors can remain impartial. The Court mandates that overturning a trial court’s jury selection is allowable only if manifest error renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The Court did not find that the case involved sufficient public passion to necessitate a more extensive jury examination by the trial court to include inquiries involving the effect of pretrial publicity. The ruling in Mu'Min leaves too much discretion to the …

Allowing A Child Abuse Victim To Testify Via One-Way Closed-Circuit Television Does Not Violate A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Right If The Trial Court Specifically Finds Such A Procedure Necessary To Protect The Child's Welfare., Lisa R. Miller

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Maryland v. Craig, the Supreme Court held allowing child abuse victims to testify via one-way closed-circuit television does not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right if the trial court finds the procedure necessary to protect the child’s welfare. Although “confront” has generally been interpreted to mean “face-to-face,” on occasion, it may yield to public policy considerations and the compelling necessities of particular cases. The original purpose of the confrontation right was to prevent the accusers in a criminal proceeding from using ex parte affidavits or depositions against a defendant, in lieu of personal testimony. The Craig …

Court-Appointed Attorneys: Old Problems And New Solutions, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who comply with the elements of the government contractor defense are immune from products liability suits stemming from design defects. Lower courts consider the government contractor defense to be a combination of two separate defenses. The first is the well-settled contract specification defense which eliminates liability for contractors who properly follow client supplied specifications. The second defense is the doctrine of shared sovereign immunity shielding the contractor from liability based on public policy concerns.

In Boyle, the Court held defective design of military equipment will not …

Student Representation Of Indigent Defendants And The Sixth Amendment: On A Collision Course, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This article will review the parallel patterns of development of clinical education and the sixth amendment, highlighting areas in which the practices of the former either conflict, or contain the potential for conflict with the latter. An analysis will be made of the present legal status of law student representation of indigent criminal defendants, with reference primarily to constitutional and sixth amendment considerations, but also to such related matters as the confidentiality of student-client communications, law student professional responsibility, and the applicability to students of state bar disciplinary rules. Finally, guidelines will be proposed regarding the proper scope of student …

Criminal Law - Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel - Burden On Defendant To Demonstrate That Serious Incompetency, Falling Measurably Below The Performance Ordinarily Expected Of Fallible Lawyers, Was Likely To Have Affected The Outcome Of Trial, Clifford H. Lange

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Functional Analysis Of The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, A Note, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

The sixth amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Supreme Court has construed this clause to guarantee to criminal defendants the "effective" assistance of counsel performing within a minimum standard of competency. Prevalent lower court interpretations of the right. to effective assistance require a showing that counsel's inadequate performance caused actual prejudice to the defendant's interest in obtaining an acquittal. Because most defendants are unable to demonstrate the actual impact upon the outcome of their trial of an attorney's departure from normal competency, courts …

The Duty Of Military Defense Counsel To An Accused, Alfred Avins

Michigan Law Review

This article is designed to study the manner in which those Canons of Professional Ethics have been assimilated into the administration of military justice and made the standards for the duty of a military defense counsel.

Constitutional Law - Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel In Federal Courts And Waiver Thereof, Richard M. Adams S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Indicted for illegal traffic in narcotics, petitioner and his trial counsel allegedly attempted to fabricate an alibi on the false testimony of petitioner's girl friend. The evidence indicated that on several occasions before trial, the girl was invited to the office of petitioner's attorney, given narcotics, and told to memorize certain false testimony to be used in petitioner's defense. Later the girl bad a change of mind and agreed to testify for the government Despite the strenuous objections of defendant's counsel, a description of this alleged fraud on the court was given in the prosecution's opening statement, and the witness …