Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Extending Miranda: Prohibition On Police Lies Regarding The Incriminating Evidence, Rinat Kitai-Sangero
Extending Miranda: Prohibition On Police Lies Regarding The Incriminating Evidence, Rinat Kitai-Sangero
San Diego Law Review
This Article addresses the question of whether lying to suspects during interrogations regarding the incriminating evidence against them is a legitimate deceit. The search for truth goes hand-in-hand with the human yearning for knowledge. Generally, lying is perceived as reprehensible. Certain types of lies, such as those concerning medical treatment or the sale of a house, may even result in civil or criminal liability. Despite the condemnation of lying, lying to suspects during interrogations is a common phenomenon, and has even been dubbed an “art.” Part II of the article presents how police use deceit and lies during interrogations in …
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Iii: Prosecution Appeals Against Judges' Rulings Of "No Case To Answer", David S. Rudstein
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Iii: Prosecution Appeals Against Judges' Rulings Of "No Case To Answer", David S. Rudstein
San Diego International Law Journal
The Order in Council permitting the prosecution appeal of "Mo" Courtney's acquittal and allowing him to be retried for the same offense of which he had previously been acquitted stems from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That Act, which applies in England and Wales, grants the government the right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge in criminal prosecutions on an indictment, including a ruling that there is no case to answer, i.e., a directed verdict of acquittal, and if the appeal is successful, allows the reviewing court to order that the acquitted defendant?s trial be resumed or that …
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein
San Diego International Law Journal
Parliament enacted a statute in 1996 intended to limit the double jeopardy bar in some situations in which the defendant obtained an acquittal through improper means, thereby permitting the government to retry the person for the same offense of which he previously was tried and acquitted. The statute, part of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, allows a retrial when an individual's acquittal was tainted, which, under the statute, means an acquittal resulting from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror, witness, or potential witness. In allowing a retrial in such circumstances, the statute creates an exception to the …
Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein
Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein
San Diego International Law Journal
More than 240 years ago, Sir William Blackstone, perhaps the most important commentator on the English common law, wrote that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any indictment, or other prosecution, before any court having competent jurisdiction of the offence, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same crime. This plea of autrefois acquit (a former acquittal), Blackstone explained, is based upon the principle that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offence, which he called a universal maxim of …
Pretrial Detention In The Ninth Circuit, Thomas Bak
Pretrial Detention In The Ninth Circuit, Thomas Bak
San Diego Law Review
In 1992, the Judicial Conference of the United States ("JCUS") adopted a resolution encouraging the examination of bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, age and disability in the federal judiciary. The Ninth Circuit responded to the JCUS resolution with a study of gender bias, completed in 1993.2 Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference authorized a second study, establishing the Task Force on Racial, Religious, and Ethnic Fairness in 1993.' This study of pretrial detention in the Ninth Circuit was undertaken as part of the research commissioned by the Task Force.