Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2010 Preview, Update: December 7, 2010, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2010 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Civilian Aggravating Factors On The Military Death Penalty (1984-2005): Another Chapter In The Resistance Of The Armed Forces To The Civilianization Of Military Justice, Catherine M. Grosso, David C. Baldus, George Woodworth

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984, the U.S. Armed Forces amended its capital punishment system for death eligible murder to bring it into compliance with Furman v. Georgia. Those amendments were modeled after death penalty legislation prevailing in over thirty states. After a brief period between 1986 and 1990, the charging decisions of commanders and the conviction and sentencing decisions of court martial members (jurors) transformed the military death penalty system into a dual system that treats two classes of death eligible murder quite differently. Since 1990, a member of the armed forces accused of a killing a commissioned officer or murder with a …

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Update: February 22, 2010, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

A Fourth Circuit Photograph, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals issued a report and proposals after carefully evaluating the appellate system for a year, while the data have minimally changed since the report's issuance. The Commission's principal focus was the Ninth Circuit, as Congress had instructed, yet the Commission assembled much useful information on each circuit court of appeals and found that all operate efficaciously. Because how the Fourth Circuit addresses a large docket is critical to appellate justice, the Commission's analysis of the tribunal and the court itself merit scrutiny, which this Article undertakes.

Part I of this …

Reply To Richard A. Leo And Jon B. Gould, Samuel R. Gross, Barbara O'Brien

Articles

The following is a letter to the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law received from Professors Samuel Gross and Barbara O'Brien, responding to an article published in the Journal in Fall 2009 by Professors Richard Leo and Jon Gould. This letter is followed by a reply from Professors Leo and Gould. Professors Gross and O'Brien did not see the reply prior to the Journal going to press. As we have indicated before, we welcome letters to the Journal from readers on any topic covered in a prior issue. - Editors