Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Representing The United States Government: Reconceiving The Federal Prosecutor's Role Through A Historical Lens, Scott Ingram
Representing The United States Government: Reconceiving The Federal Prosecutor's Role Through A Historical Lens, Scott Ingram
Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy
For nearly 100 years courts and legal scholars have held prosecutors to the “justice” standard, meaning that the prosecutor’s first duty is to ensure that justice is done. With this command, prosecutors have increased their discretion. The modern prosecutor’s power is unrivaled in the criminal justice system. Judges and defense attorneys have ceded some of their power to prosecutors. The prosecutor’s power has led a host of commentators to critique prosecutorial use of power for a variety of reasons. Rather than add to this voluminous literature by defending or critiquing prosecutorial power, this Article challenges the underlying assumption of prosecutorial …
What's On Your Mind? Imputing Motive In A Title Vii Case, An Analysis Of Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Eeoc, Barbara J. Fick
What's On Your Mind? Imputing Motive In A Title Vii Case, An Analysis Of Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Eeoc, Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article examines the case E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, which was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court, but was dismissed before that argument occurred.
The Supervisory Power Of The Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett
The Supervisory Power Of The Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett
Journal Articles
Relying on something it calls supervisory power or supervisory authority, the Supreme Court regularly prescribes rules of procedure and evidence for inferior courts. Both scholars and the Court have treated the Court's exercises of this authority as unexceptional exercises of the inherent authority that Article III grants every federal court to regulate procedure in the course of adjudication. Article III's grant of inherent authority, however, is conventionally understood as permitting a federal court to regulate its own proceedings. When the Supreme Court exercises supervisory power, it regulates the proceedings of other federal courts. More than a reference to every court's …
Activism As Restraint: Lessons From Criminal Procedure, Stephen F. Smith
Activism As Restraint: Lessons From Criminal Procedure, Stephen F. Smith
Journal Articles
In this Article, I advance a limited defense of judicial activism by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts in constitutional criminal procedure. My basic claim is that even if the so-called "Counterrevolution" in criminal procedure is viewed as activist -- as I think much of it must be -- it nevertheless was normatively defensible as a necessary condition, in a “second-best” world, of reaching an equilibrium closer to the judicial restraint model than would be possible if activism were only a one-way ratchet. Though my thesis supplies a justification for the Burger and Rehnquist Court's basic approach to legal change, it …
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: May A Prisoner's Challenge To Parole Revocation Be Delayed Until The Sentence Is Completed And Then Dismissed As Moot?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
A preview of Spencer v. Kemna, a 1997 Supreme Court case where a prison inmate challenged the revocation of his parole by the state of Missouri. This case is significant because the inmate initiated his challenge while in prison and continued it after he had served his sentence and was released. Substantial confusion exists in case law regarding whether such a challenge would be considered moot after the inmate had completed serving his or her sentence. At issue is if the “collateral consequences” rule applies to challenges against parole revocations. The Court has ruled that challenges by individuals against their …
Cooperating With The Prosecutor: How Many Motions Does It Take To Secure A Sentence That Is Less Than The Mandatory Minimum Provided By Statute?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
A preview of Melendez v. United States, a 1996 Supreme Court case in which a convicted cocaine dealer appealed his mandatory 10 year sentence under the federal statutes on the grounds that he had cooperated with the prosecutor. While the United States Congress has authorized courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum set by the statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who provide substantial cooperation with the prosecution, courts can only do so at the request of the prosecutor. At issue in this case, where the prosecutor requested a sentence lower than the Guidelines minimum but not …
The Double Jeopardy Dilemma: Does Criminal Prosecution And Civil Forfeiture In Separate Proceedings Violate The Double Jeopardy Clause?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
A preview of two 1996 Supreme Court cases. In the first case, US v. Ursery, a convicted narcotics dealer filed a motion to dismiss his criminal sentence on the grounds that it had violated the double jeopardy clause because he had already received a civil forfeiture judgment for the same crime. The second case, US v. $405,089.23, involves a similar situation, with a convicted felon filing a motion to dismiss his civil forfeiture case on the grounds that he had received a criminal sentence for the same crime earlier. The article argues that the two cases are significant because the …
Multiple Punishment For Similar Crimes: Is The Double Jeopardy Clause Violated?, Jimmy Gurule
Multiple Punishment For Similar Crimes: Is The Double Jeopardy Clause Violated?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
Criminal defendants often are charged and convicted of multiple offenses. And often one offense is a lesser included offense of another, which means that proving one offense proves the other. If the offender is sentenced for both crimes, is the prohibition against double jeopardy violated? That is the question the Supreme Court addresses in this drug trafficking case, a case in which two concurrent life imprisonment sentences were imposed for virtually the same conduct.
Sentencing In Indiana: Appellate Review Of The Trial Court's Discretion, John Eric Smithburn
Sentencing In Indiana: Appellate Review Of The Trial Court's Discretion, John Eric Smithburn
Journal Articles
Two significant developments, legislative and judicial, have taken place in Indiana criminal law in recent months which may offer an effective response to the problem of unguided discretionary sentencing. The Indiana Penal Code has been revised to require that the trial court, before sentencing a convicted felon, conduct a separate hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence and to make a record of the hearing which must include a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence imposed. The General Assembly has also provided specific directives which the trial court must consider in determining a proper sentence …