Criminal Law Commons^™

California Youth Authority - Hearing December 8, 1981, Assembly Criminal Justice Committee On Juvenile Justice

California Assembly

No abstract provided.

Cults, Deprogrammers, And The Necessity Defense, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note considers the applicability of the necessity defense in criminal prosecutions of parents and deprogrammers. Part I explores the conflicting policies that underlie the traditional necessity defense, and suggests that courts replace their unitary approach to necessity with a "choice of evils" defense - for actors reasonably attempting to avoid a greater evil - and a "compulsion" defense - for actors reacting understandably to the pressure of circumstances. Part II applies these defenses to deprogramming cases, and concludes that rarely may they be advanced successfully.

California Youth Authority - Hearing November 13, 1981, Assembly Criminal Justice Committee On Juvenile Justice

California Assembly

Our purposes are to begin to discuss the California Youth Authority, its policies, its programs, and consistent with the agenda, we are going to be talking about essentially the parole decisions and policies associated with that, the early release policies which have already started being developed, the day pass issue that is used by the Youth Authority and I think quite properly the issues of public safety associated with that are to be discussed.

The Future Of Probation In Crime Control, Assembly Subcommittee On Criminal Justice Resources

California Assembly

The subcommittee has called this hearing today for the purpose of examining the crisis of diminishing resources which currently affect programs and services in Los Angeles County and throughout the State. Local governments, in the wake of Proposition 13, have reduced expenditures for many important functions, including criminal justice functions. Probation departments in this process have been particularly vulnerable to reductions in programs and staffing and have received ·heavier cuts than other criminal justice agencies. The decline in probation resources raises important questions about the future role of probation in the criminal justice process. Among the most important of these …

Impeachment: The Dilemma Of The Defendant-Witness In North Carolina, Thomas C. Manning

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Parent-Child Incest: Proof At Trial Without Testimony In Court By The Victim, Dustin P. Ordway

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the incest victim should not testify personally at trial. Rather, the child's testimony should be replaced with tape-recorded pretrial examinations of the victim by an expert, supplemented by the in-court testimony of the examining expert. Part I discusses how the present system of requiring in-court testimony by the victim harms the child, fails to correct the incest problem, and produces unreliable evidence. Part II outlines and discusses the merits of the proposed reform. Part ill examines the proposed reform in light of the defendant's constitutional rights to due process and to confront witnesses against him. The …

Eddings V. Oklahoma, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Harlow V. Fitzgerald, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Washington V. Chrisman, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Globe Newspaper Co. V. Superior Court For The County Of Norfolk, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment And The "Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy", Gerald G. Ashdown

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article does not endeavor to engage in a debate over the efficacy or deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule.' Nevertheless, it should be noted that these decisions appear questionable. It seems clear that a refusal to apply the rule in cases of particular fourth amendment transgressions will produce no incremental deterrence of unlawful police conduct, and inconsistent application of the rule arguably could diminish whatever deterrent value does exist.Therefore, if deterrence is viewed as the primary--if not only-function of the exclusionary rule, that goal should be promoted through thorough and consistent application of the rule.The Supreme Court, however, has …

Criminal Procedure—Scope Of The Exclusionary Rule—Inevitable Discovery Exception Adopted, Melanie J. Strigel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Virginia Conspiracy Statute Part Ii: Liability Of Conspirators For Compelling Another To Act Against His Will Or Constraining Another From Doing A Lawful Act, Joseph E. Ulrich, Killis T. Howard

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Suggested Legislative Approach To The Problem Of Computer Crime

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Access To Evidence: The Case For The Defense Use Of Immunity For Essential Witnesses, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Criminal Litigation, Andrew H. Marshall

Mercer Law Review

During 1980 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided well over 200 cases in the constitutional law/criminal area, including direct criminal appeals, collateral attacks on both state and federal criminal convictions, and a handful of cases arising in other contexts. The typical opinion addresses and resolves multiple assignments of error, which compounds the difficulty of organizing decisions into precise, discrete categories. The quantity and diversity of litigation in the area requires that a survey be limited to a fraction of the decided cases. The selection process utilized in the preparation of this survey can only be …

United States V. Di Francesco: Court Upholds State Initiated Sentence Appeals, Thomas Michael Hackel

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Di Francesco, the Supreme Court upheld a statute that allowed the government to seek, through an appeal, an increase of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court found that the statute did not violate the protections of the double jeopardy clause against multiple trials and multiple punishment. The question of state initiated appeals assumes further significance when it is considered that proposed revisions of the Federal Criminal Code include wider implementation of sentence appeals by the state.

Liability For Parole Decisionmaking: The Absence Of Discretion In The Parole Process, Robert F. Polglase

Mercer Law Review

In Payton v. United States, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the parole of a federal prisoner who, following release, murdered plaintiff's wife. The court concluded that such parole decisionmaking did not come within the discretionary function exemption of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

05-19-1981 Memorandum To The Conference, Lewis F. Powell

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

No. 79-2034, Blum v. Caldwell, was held for our decision in Beltran v. Myers. It involves the validity of a similar New York rule governing transfers of assets by "medically needy" recipients of Medicaid in that State. The rule bars applicants who have made such transfers for the purposing of obtaining eligibility, and creates a presumption that transfers made in the preceding 18 months were for this purpose.

05-18-1981 Justice Stewart, Dissenting, Potter Stewart

Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)

JUSTICE STEWART, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.

05-18-1981 Justice White, Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)

On July 14, 1976, criminal complaints were issued against petitioners charging them with disseminating obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2907.32. The Municipal Court granted petitioners' motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that petitioners had been subjected to selective and discriminatory prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Courts of Appeals of Ohio reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support petitioners' allegations of selective and discriminatory persecution. The case was remanded for trial. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. We granted certiorari. -U.S.- (1980). Because the decision of the Ohio Supreme …

05-18-1981 Justice Stevens, Dissenting, John Paul Stevens

Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

05-18-1981 Per Curiam, Lewis F. Powell

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

We granted a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , holding that California's "transfer-of-assets" statute applicable to "medically needy" recipients of Medicaid benefits does not conflict with governing federal law . Dawson v. Myers, 622 F. 2d 1304 (CA9 1980). Petitioner is an individual considered "medically needy" under California's Medicaid plan, who represents the class of all such persons who have been denied Medicaid benefits because of previous transfers of assets for less than full consideration.

05-18-1981 Justice Stevens, Concurring, John Paul Stevens

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, .JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in the judgment.

05-13-1981 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Powell, William H. Rehnquist

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Dear Lewis:

When you first circulated your proposed disposition of this case, I wrote you that I would have preferred to see the case disposed of as discussed at the Conference, but probably would not dissent if your opinion carried the day. Since then John has circulated a concurring opinion reaching the merits which I find less acceptable than your proposed disposition. I therefore join your proposed opinion.

05-13-1981 Correspondence From Stewart To Powell, Potter Stewart

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Dear Lewis,

I am glad to join your opinion for the Court.

05-13-1981 Correspondence From Burger To Powell, Warren E. Burger

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Dear Lewis:

I join.

05-06-1981 Justice Stevens, Concurring, John Paul Stevens

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

JUSTICE Stevens, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in judgement.

05-05-1981 Correspondence From White To Stevens, Byron R. White

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Dear John,

Please add my name to your concurring opinion in this case.

05-05-1981 Correspondence From Marshall To Stevens, Thurgood Marshall

Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Dear John:

Please add me to your opinion.