Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Combatants (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
- Constitutional Rights (1)
- Federal Jurisdiction (1)
- Habeas Corpus (1)
-
- International Law (1)
- Judicial Process (1)
- Legislative Power (1)
- Prison Regulation (1)
- Right to Counsel (1)
- Right to Fair and Impartial Trial (1)
- Riley v. California (1)
- Searches and Seizures (1)
- United States Consitution 6th Amendment (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- United States v. Wurie (1)
- Warrants (1)
- Wireless Telephones (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Prisoners' Rights, Timothy Zick
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
Paul Marcus
The United States Constitution makes provision for criminal defendants to be represented by counsel. In the federal jurisdiction this principle was vigorously applied, even to indigent persons, very early in the Twentieth Century. The United States Supreme Court, however, was reluctant to impose this requirement on the states except in cases of unusual circumstances where the absence of counsel would have affected the basic fairness of the trial. Finally, in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the right to counsel applies in both federal and state cases. For the past twenty years, federal and state …
The Crime Of Conspiracy Thrives In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Paul Marcus
The Crime Of Conspiracy Thrives In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Paul Marcus
Paul Marcus
No abstract provided.
Symposium: Surprising Unanimity, Even More Surprising Clarity, Adam M. Gershowitz
Symposium: Surprising Unanimity, Even More Surprising Clarity, Adam M. Gershowitz
Adam M. Gershowitz
No abstract provided.
Congress, The Supreme Court, And Enemy Combatants: How Lawmakers Buoyed Judicial Supremacy By Placing Limits On Federal Court Jurisdiction, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Deportation For A Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void For Vagueness, Mary Holper
Deportation For A Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void For Vagueness, Mary Holper
Mary Holper
A major problem facing noncitizen criminal defendants today is the vagueness of the term “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) in deportation law. The Supreme Court in the 1951 case Jordan v. DeGeorge decided that a statute authorizing deportation for a CIMT was not void for vagueness because courts had long held the noncitizen’s offense, fraud, to be a CIMT, so he was on notice of his likely deportation. I argue that when noncitizens are charged with an offense that case law has not clearly delineated as a CIMT, the term is vague, since the definition used by the agency and …