Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Crimes (2)
- Juries (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- African Americans (1)
- Asset forfeiture (1)
-
- Batson v. Kentucky (1)
- Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas (1)
- Bribery (1)
- Comprehensive Forfeiture Act (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Criminology (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Evans v. United States (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Gender and law (1)
- Hobbs Act (1)
- McCormick v. United States (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Organized crime (1)
- Peremptory challenges (1)
- Petty offenses (1)
- Pretext (1)
- Pretrial restraints (1)
- Public officials (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Quid pro quo (1)
- RICO (1)
- Race and law (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences: Multiple Petty Offenses And The Sixth Amendment Right To Jury Trial, Jeff E. Butler
Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences: Multiple Petty Offenses And The Sixth Amendment Right To Jury Trial, Jeff E. Butler
Michigan Law Review
In Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, the Supreme Court set forth the definitive standard for distinguishing petty offenses from serious crimes.7 The benchmark used by the Court is the maximum prison term assigned to each offense by the legislature. Where the penalty exceeds six months' imprisonment, the offense is serious enough to trigger the right to jury trial. Where the penalty is six months' imprisonment or less, there is a strong presumption that the offense is petty; therefore, a defendant accused of that offense has no Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
This Note argues that a criminal …
True Lies: The Role Of Pretext Evidence Under Batson V. Kentucky In The Wake Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, David A. Sutphen
True Lies: The Role Of Pretext Evidence Under Batson V. Kentucky In The Wake Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, David A. Sutphen
Michigan Law Review
In the process of determining whether a peremptory strike is valid, lower courts rely on the TI.tie VII burden-shifting framework originally laid out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green As a result, the order and presentation of proof in Batson cases deliberately parallels the order and presentation of proof in TI.tie VII intentional discrimination suits. In light of this similarity, the Supreme Court's recent TI.tie VII ruling in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks - that proof of pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework is not the legal equivalent to proof of intentional discrimination - raises …
Putting Women First, Mary Coombs
Putting Women First, Mary Coombs
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Gender, Crime, and Punishment by Kathleen Daly
Should Courts Impose Rico's Pretrial Restraint Measures On Substitute Assets?, James M. Rosenthal
Should Courts Impose Rico's Pretrial Restraint Measures On Substitute Assets?, James M. Rosenthal
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that courts should not apply RICO's pretrial restraint measures to substitute assets. Part I examines the text of RICO's forfeiture provisions in light of recent rulings by the Supreme Court providing guidance in interpreting the statute. Part I concludes that the statute's plain meaning limits pretrial restraint measures to tainted assets. Part II examines language in the legislative history of an earlier attempt to add a substitute asset provision to RICO and in the 1984 change from broad to specific language in the pretrial restraint provision. From this language, Part II concludes that Congress did not intend …
The Emerging Role Of The Quid Pro Quo Requirement In Public Corruption .Prosecutions Under The Hobbs Act, Peter D. Hardy
The Emerging Role Of The Quid Pro Quo Requirement In Public Corruption .Prosecutions Under The Hobbs Act, Peter D. Hardy
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note discusses the quid pro quo requirement under the Hobbs Act, a federal criminal statute which applies to bribery by public officials. The author first describes two recent decisions by the Supreme Court, McCormick v. United States and Evans v. United States, which established slightly different versions of a quid pro quo requirement in public corruption prosecutions under the Hobbs Act. The author then explains that the lower federal courts interpreting McCormick and Evans have molded the quid pro quo requirement so that a prosecutor must prove in all public corruption cases under the Hobbs Act that the …