Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Law (2)
- 1901 (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Barnett v. Corson (1)
- Circumstantial Evidence (1)
-
- Communications (1)
- Confession (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Defamation (1)
- Deliberative Process Privilege (1)
- Department Head (1)
- Dickinson Law (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Executive Privilege (1)
- FOIA (1)
- Forcible Compulsion (1)
- IDSI (1)
- In-Camera Review (1)
- Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (1)
- Libel (1)
- Mens Rea (1)
- Mental Processes (1)
- Miranda (1)
- Mistake of Fact Defense (1)
- Moot Court (1)
- Pennsylvania Constitution (1)
- Pennsylvania Crimes Code (1)
- Pennsylvania Practice (1)
- Police Misconduct (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.
This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …
It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko
It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In 1982, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Williams, wherein the court held that a defendant charged with rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) cannot use a mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s consent. The court relied on the reasoning that a defendant’s mens rea is not an element of either rape or IDSI. Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, however, requires that where the legislature has failed to expressly require a finding of mens rea in the text of the statute, at least recklessness must be imputed to each material element.
This Comment …
Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed
Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
No abstract provided.