Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due Process (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Adult Criminal Court (1)
- Aggravating Circumstances (1)
-
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Assertion (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital Sentence (1)
- Conduct (1)
- County (1)
- Death Eligibility (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death Selection (1)
- Declarant (1)
- Define (1)
- Definitions (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Exclusions to hearsay (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Fre 801 (1)
- Furman v. Georgia (1)
- Gregg v. Georgia (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Hearsay exclusionary rule (1)
- Hildwin v. Florida (1)
- Hurst v. Florida (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …