Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Georgia Death Penalty Law, Mike Mears, Ken Driggs
Georgia Death Penalty Law, Mike Mears, Ken Driggs
Mercer Law Review
This Article covers death penalty decisions from the Georgia Supreme Court for the period from January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2000. It primarily discusses direct appeal decisions but reaches cases in a few other settings as well. This Article does not discuss holdings in capital cases that are common to all criminal appeals but is limited to death penalty law. Recent developments in Georgia death penalty law are considered in the order they would appear in a capital trial. In the period covered by this Article, the Georgia Supreme Court considered thirteen death sentences imposed in superior courts following …
Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix
Mercer Law Review
In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.
United States V. Dickerson: The Beginning Of The End For Miranda, James R. O'Neill
United States V. Dickerson: The Beginning Of The End For Miranda, James R. O'Neill
Mercer Law Review
In United States v. Dickerson, the Fourth Circuit held that the admissibility of a confession in federal courts is determined by 18 U.S.C. § 3501, not the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit concluded, pursuant to the statute, that admissibility of a confession depends upon whether or not it is voluntary
Constitutional Criminal Procedure, James P. Fleissner, Amy C. Reeder
Constitutional Criminal Procedure, James P. Fleissner, Amy C. Reeder
Mercer Law Review
The field known as "constitutional criminal procedure" is one of the most dynamic branches of constitutional interpretation. Because most of the guarantees of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the Bill of Rights have the effect of creating national minimum standards for both the federal and state criminal justice systems. Because every year there are many significant decisions in the field of constitutional criminal procedure, practitioners need to keep abreast of breaking developments. Of course, the Supreme Court decides …
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, James T. Skuthan, Rosemary T. Cakmis
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, James T. Skuthan, Rosemary T. Cakmis
Mercer Law Review
In 1999 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals broke new ground on a variety of issues related to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G."). A significant number of cases interpreted firearms possession in connection with various offenses; loss calculations for fraud offenses; Chapter Three adjustments, such as role, obstruction of justice, and reckless endangerment; and U.S.S.G. Section 5K departures. At the same time, the court consistently refused to revisit previously decided issues, such as the constitutionality of the crack cocaine guidelines, and sided with the majority of circuits in resolving issues of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Mercer Law Review
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.
Holloway V. United States: Conditional V. Unconditional Intent To Kill, Michael Douglas Owens
Holloway V. United States: Conditional V. Unconditional Intent To Kill, Michael Douglas Owens
Mercer Law Review
In Holloway v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that the "intent to kill" element in the federal cajacking statute was satisfied by a mere conditional intent to kill. The Court reasoned that a common-sense reading of the statute indicated Congress's attempt to include the mens rea of both unconditional and conditional intent.
Wyoming V. Houghton: Passengers' Belongings Subject To Searches Under The "Automobile Exception" To The Fourth Amendment's Warrant Requirements, Theresa H. Hammond
Wyoming V. Houghton: Passengers' Belongings Subject To Searches Under The "Automobile Exception" To The Fourth Amendment's Warrant Requirements, Theresa H. Hammond
Mercer Law Review
In Wyoming v. Houghton the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of conducting a warrantless search of a container under the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court held that when police officers have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may also search any container found in the car, including passengers' belongings, that are capable of concealing the object of the search.