Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach
Akron Law Review
The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.
Voir Dire: Strategy And Tactics In The Defense Of Social And Political Activists, Murray R. Bowes
Voir Dire: Strategy And Tactics In The Defense Of Social And Political Activists, Murray R. Bowes
Akron Law Review
With the courts increasingly being the forum for legal disputes between those who demand change in the superstructure and those who represent (or are) the structure, a rather unfortunate by-product has evolved: a feeling that the courts can no longer adequately dispense justice.8 This manifests itself in beliefs that if one is prosecuted for activities that were designed to advance social change, either in violation of the law or not, that the individual will not be afforded a fair trial; 9 a reflection that the social or political activist will not be judged by an impartial jury….For the purposes of …
The Admissibility Of Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Evidence Pursuant To Stipulation In Criminal Proceedings, Bruce C. Heslop
The Admissibility Of Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Evidence Pursuant To Stipulation In Criminal Proceedings, Bruce C. Heslop
Akron Law Review
American courts have traditionally held that evidence pertaining to the results of a lie-detector test is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding on behalf of either the prosecution or defense….In recent years, however, a few jurisdictions have withdrawn from the traditional approach and have admitted lie-detector evidence in limited situations, notwithstanding objection by the adverse party….The decision of whether or not to adopt the approach presented here must critically evaluate the potential value of polygraph evidence along with its potential dangers. In so doing, the courts of Ohio should determine whether a procedure may be devised to maximize the value and …
Evidence - Admissibility Of Statements To Parole Officer - Miranda Warnings; State V. Gallagher, Thomas A. Treadon
Evidence - Admissibility Of Statements To Parole Officer - Miranda Warnings; State V. Gallagher, Thomas A. Treadon
Akron Law Review
The opinion handed down in this recent decision from the Montgomery County Court of Appeals examined a question of first impression in the courts of Ohio. The issue presented was "whether a parole or probation officer is a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Miranda and thus subject to the Miranda requirements of constitutional warnings to suspects during custodial interrogation...."
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Akron Law Review
"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …
"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins
"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins
Akron Law Review
On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.