Law Commons^™

New Directions In The Right To Refuse Mental Health Treatment: The Implications Of Riggins V. Nevada, Bruce J. Winick

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence And The Criminal Courts, David B. Wexler

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Issues Raised By Guidelines Sentencing: The Constitutional Significance Of The "Elements Of The Sentence", Sara Sun Beale

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Language And Culture (Not To Say Race) Of Peremptory Challenges, Sheri Lynn Johnson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Taking The Stand, Barbara A. Babcock

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Harmless Error In Federal Habeas Corpus After Brecht V. Abrahamson, John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Serve And Yet To Be Protected: The Unconstitutional Use Of Coerced Statements In Subsequent Criminal Proceedings Against Law Enforcement Officers, Andrew M. Herzig

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pruett V. Thompson 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir. 1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Chabrol V. Commonwealth 245 Va. 327, 427 S.E.2d 374 (1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

What Every Virginia Capital Defense Attorney Should Know About The Federal Drug Kingpin Statute, Paul M. O'Grady

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Smith V. Dixon 996 F.2d 667 (4th Cir. 1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Beavers V. Commonwealth 245 Va. 268, 427 S.E.2d 411 (1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Murphy V. Commonwealth 246 Va. 136, 431 S.E.2d 48 (1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Presenting Mitigation Against The Client's Wishes: A Moral Or Professional Imperative?, Susan F. Henderson

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Reforming The Criminal Trial, Craig M. Bradley

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Proportionality And Punishment: Double Counting Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Gary Swearingen

Washington Law Review

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines enhance sentences when the commission of a crime includes certain kinds of egregious conduct. The guidelines define such egregious conduct in a way that allows the sentencing judge to enhance the defendant's sentence twice for the same conduct—once as a "characteristic" of the specific offense for which the defendant is convicted and again under a general "adjustments" section. The federal circuit courts are divided concerning whether the guidelines permit double counting. This Comment examines the courts' differing interpretations of the governing statutes and concludes that the guidelines do not permit double counting unless explicitly stated in …

Death Wish: What Washington Court Should Do When A Capital Defendant Wants To Die, Laura A. Rosenwald

Washington Law Review

The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. Dodd that a capital defendant may waive general review of conviction and sentence, and failed to determine whether a defendant may also withhold all mitigating evidence from the sentencing proceeding. The holding limits appellate oversight of death sentences to a degree that fails to ensure Washington's interest in reliable capital punishment. The court should have required general review of both conviction and sentencing in all capital cases. It also should have established a procedure for third-party presentation of mitigating evidence on behalf of capital defendants who insist on withholding such evidence.

Davis V. State: Too Young To Consent?, Judson Robert Jahn

Mercer Law Review

In Davis v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a ten-year-old child could not give valid consent to a search of his parents' home. In determining the validity of a minor's consent, the supreme court considered those factors that the court of appeals deemed relevant in Atkins v. State. Applying the Atkins factors, the supreme court held that ten-year- old Darrin Davis ("Darrin") "lacked that degree of mental discretion necessary for a minor to give valid consent to the search of his, and his parents', home." According to Justice Sears-Collins, "[m]ost ten-year-old children are incapable of …

Prosecuting Child Sexual Abuse: A Survey Of Evidentiary Modifications In West Virginia, Kelley L. Brown

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Morgan V. Illinois: The Defense Gets The Reverse- Witherspoon Question, Thomas Joshua R. Archer

Mercer Law Review

In Morgan v. Illinois the United States Supreme Court settled the "reverse- Witherspoon" question. The Court held that a trial court in a capital case must, upon the defendant's request, specifically inquire into a prospective juror's views on capital punishment and that a potential juror who would always vote for a sentence of death, regardless of the facts, must be struck for cause. Further, the Court stated that the presence of even one partial juror on a defendant's panel offends the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury and the sentence may not stand.

Before Morgan …

Sentencing Intimate Femicide: A Comment On R. V. Doyle, Teresa Scassa

Dalhousie Law Journal

In August of 1989, Donald Michael Doyle murdered his wife of fifteen years by firing three shots into her chest while she slept. He was charged with first degree murder, and pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until after the statutory minimum of ten years. The Crown appealed the sentencing decision of the trial judge, and argued for a greater period of parole ineligibility. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and raised the period of imprisonment without parole to seventeen years. The differences between the sentencing decisions …

Wise V. Williams 982 F.2d 142 (4th Cir. 1992)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Chronological Outline Of A Capital Murder Trial, Rhonda L. Overstreet

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

From Japan's Death Row To Freedom, Daniel H. Foote

Washington International Law Journal

In 1975, the Japanese Supreme Court relaxed the standards governing the grant of retrials in criminal cases. Since then four death row inmates have obtained new trials and ultimate vindication through acquittals. The facts of the four cases are compelling: all involved highly publicized murders, rather harsh investigations leading to confessions that the defendants subsequently disavowed, and seemingly routine convictions followed by decades-long struggles by the convicted men to forestall their executions and secure retrials. Each of the men spent over 25 years on death row before the final determination that he had been unjustly convicted. In this article, Professor …

Dobbs V. Zant 113 S. Ct. 835 (1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Jenkins V. Commonwealth 244 Va. 445 423 S.E.2d 360 (1992)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Litigating The Death Penalty And Race Discrimination In A Post-Mccleskey World, G. Douglas Kilday

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Anything Someone Else Says Can And Will Be Used Against You In A Court Of Law: The Use Of Unadjudicated Acts In Capital Sentencing, Laura J. Fenn

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Two-Edged" Sword: Mitigation Evidence Used In Aggravation, Charles F. Castner

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Flow Chart Of The Stages Of A Capital Murder Trial

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.