Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (4)
- Admissibility (2)
- Disclosure (2)
- Adversary System (1)
- Bad faith (1)
-
- Brady (1)
- Brady material (1)
- Catalan (1)
- Catalan Independence (1)
- City of Hays v. Vogt (1)
- Communications (1)
- Confession (1)
- Conflict of Interest (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Consumer insolvency (1)
- Cooperation and Plea Agreement (1)
- Court (1)
- Court of appeals (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal process (1)
- Deliberative Process Privilege (1)
- Department Head (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Due process (1)
- Due process clause (1)
- Duty (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …
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 …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence Struggles: Legality, Legitimacy, And Social Mobilizations In The Catalan Political Conflict, Susana Narotzky
Evidence Struggles: Legality, Legitimacy, And Social Mobilizations In The Catalan Political Conflict, Susana Narotzky
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies
Different kinds of evidence are put forward to make an argument and justify political action by agents situated in diverse social, cultural, and power positions. The Catalan political conflict is a case in point. The central Spanish government's arguments are mostly of a juridical nature and rest on the anti-constitutionality of the Catalan government and other civil society organizations' actions. Instead, most arguments of Catalan supporters of independence are based on historical interpretations of grievances referring to national institutions and identity. Supporters of independence, under the politically inspired actions of major civil society associations, have mobilized hundreds of thousands of …
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.
This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …
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 …