Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review
The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that once the defendant raises a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim that turns on a question of fact, the government should have the burden of proving that the two crimes charged are actually different. Part I traces the development of the law and the major factors behind recent federal court scrutiny of the traditional rule. Part II argues that constitutional considerations require courts to shift the burden of proof to the government, not only when practical considerations suggest the shift, but in all cases turning on questions of fact. Finally, Part III reconciles this allocation with the well-established …
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court's post-conviction cases cannot be extended to cases involving jury acquittal and that federal reprosecution after state jury acquittal violates the double jeopardy clause. One can give meaning to the clause, Part Iexplains, only by reference to its underlying constitutional values.Part II suggests that these values, while possibly compatible with federal prosecution after a state conviction, cannot countenance reprosecution after a jury acquittal. Part III proposes that courts determine whether such reprosecution is appropriate by applying the Blockhurger same offense standard: Two offenses are the same unless each requires proof of …
The Three Faces Of Double Jeopardy: Reflections On Government Appeals Of Criminal Sentences, Peter K. Westen
The Three Faces Of Double Jeopardy: Reflections On Government Appeals Of Criminal Sentences, Peter K. Westen
Michigan Law Review
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United States v. DiFrancesco presents such a test to the law of double jeopardy, raising the question whether the government may unilaterally appeal a defendant's criminal sentence for the purpose of increasing the sentence. The question cannot be answered by facile reference to the text of the fifth amendment, because the terms of the double jeopardy clause are not self-defining. Nor can it be settled by reference to history, because the issue has not arisen with any frequency until now.
Revocation Of Conditional Liberty For The Commission Of A Crime: Double Jeopardy And Self-Incrimination Limitations, Michigan Law Review
Revocation Of Conditional Liberty For The Commission Of A Crime: Double Jeopardy And Self-Incrimination Limitations, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Persons on deferred sentence, probation, or parole who arguably violate the criminal law may face two proceedings: a hearing to revoke their conditional liberty and a criminal trial. The possibility of two proceedings raises at least two major constitutional questions. First, are the defendant's rights under the double jeopardy or due process clauses violated if the state holds two inquiries into the alleged criminal act? Second, is the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination abridged if the revocation hearing is held before the criminal trial?
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purposes behind collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and the current effectiveness of the two doctrines in light of these policies and purposes. The policies of the double jeopardy guarantee are well defined in the federal cases. Basically, it is recognized that the state, having at hand many more resources than the average defendant can muster, should not be allowed to make successive attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Successive prosecutions cause the defendant expense and embarrassment and force him to live …
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Prosecutions By Both A City And A State For An Identical Offense As A Violation Of The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy--Waller V. State, Michigan Law Review
Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Prosecutions By Both A City And A State For An Identical Offense As A Violation Of The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy--Waller V. State, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Palko was specifically overruled to the extent that it was inconsistent with the Benton decision. Thus, the theories traditionally used to defend prosecutions by both a city and a state for the same offense must be examined to determine whether they are still valid when the fifth amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy is applied to state proceedings. This Recent Development examines the implications of the Benton decision for those theories.
Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges
Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges
Michigan Law Review
The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in a civil proceeding for giving "don't remember" answers, after having been granted immunity from prosecution, to questions concerning his activities, asked during a grand jury investigation of an attempted homicide. For his refusal to testify, the defendant was given the maximum penalty provided for criminal contempt under the applicable statute. After paying the fine and serving the sentence, the defendant was brought before the same grand jury thirty-five days later and was asked the same questions. The defendant repeated the "don't remember" answers and was again fined and incarcerated. …
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
Michigan Law Review
Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Successive State Prosecutions For Same Activity, Robert L. Bombaugh
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Successive State Prosecutions For Same Activity, Robert L. Bombaugh
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner suspected of having robbed five persons on a single occasion. was indicted and tried for the robbery of three of them. His sole defense was alibi and he was acquitted when only one of the five victims identified him as the robber. Petitioner was then tried under an indictment for the robbery of a fourth victim. Petitioner interposed the same defense but was convicted at this second trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed, three justices dissenting. Neither the successive trials nor the failure of the court to …
Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal By State - Constitutionality Of Statutes-Due Process Of Law, Edward D. Ransom
Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal By State - Constitutionality Of Statutes-Due Process Of Law, Edward D. Ransom
Michigan Law Review
Developing as a result of a period when an accused person was placed at a tremendous disadvantage at the hands of tyrannical judges exercising an unconscionable abuse of power, the concept that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" was put into the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and into many of the state constitutions. As a part of this double jeopardy concept, the American courts, from the first, established the rule that the state should not be allowed to appeal in a criminal prosecution. The accused, …
Criminal Law And Procedure-Former Jeopardy-Tests Of "Same Offence
Criminal Law And Procedure-Former Jeopardy-Tests Of "Same Offence
Michigan Law Review
The provision in the state and federal constitutions that one may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense is merely declaratory of the common law, and is in effect in all jurisdictions. However, there is often great difficulty in determining when offenses are the same. Several tests to determine the identity of offenses have been employed.