Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Arkansas Law Review
The “seat belt defense” has been hotly litigated over the decades in numerous jurisdictions across the United States. It is an affirmative defense that, when allowed, reduces a plaintiff’s recovery for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision where the defendant can establish that those injuries would have been less severe or avoided entirely had the plaintiff been wearing an available seat belt. This is an unsettled legal issue in Arkansas, despite the growing number of cases in which the seat belt defense is raised as an issue. Most jurisdictions, including Arkansas, initially rejected the defense, but the basis for …
Confession Obsession: How To Protect Minors In Interrogations, Cindy Chau
Confession Obsession: How To Protect Minors In Interrogations, Cindy Chau
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Methodology Of Social Adaptation Following The Liberation Of A Wrongful Conviction, Ashantwa Jackman
The Methodology Of Social Adaptation Following The Liberation Of A Wrongful Conviction, Ashantwa Jackman
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Lie To Me: Examining Specific Intent Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1035
Lie To Me: Examining Specific Intent Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1035
Florida A & M University Law Review
One court notes that the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has previously not found specific intent to be required under similar language within Section 1001.9 While there are many similarities between Sections 1001 and 1035, there are salient differences. Notwithstanding the differences, this Article argues that Sections 1001 and 1035 should be interpreted without “intent to deceive” and rather be interpreted as a strict liability offense. This argument began with Part I, which provided a brief introduction regarding specific intent under Sections 1001 and 1035. Part II examines the purpose of criminalizing false statements, which identifies why the …