Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Due Process (2)
- Evidence (2)
- ACA (1)
-
- Administrative Review (1)
- Adversary System (1)
- Aggravating Circumstances (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Brady (1)
- Brandenburg (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital Sentence (1)
- Censorship (1)
- Clear and Present Danger (1)
- Community Engagement (1)
- Conditional Spending Power Doctrine (1)
- Confession (1)
- Conflict of Interest (1)
- Cooperation and Plea Agreement (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Death Eligibility (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death Selection (1)
- Decision-Maker Model (1)
- Deference (1)
- Demonstration Project (1)
- Dillon's Rule (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Duty (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
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 …
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 …
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to waive some of Medicaid’s requirements so states can enact “demonstration projects.” A demonstration project is an experiment a state can conduct by modifying aspects of its Medicaid program. To waive Medicaid’s requirements for this purpose, the Secretary must determine that the proposed demonstration project will likely assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives.
Using this standard, President Trump’s Secretary has approved waiver requests to enact demonstration projects that contain “community engagement” requirements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has heard each …
Whose Market Is It Anyway? A Philosophy And Law Critique Of The Supreme Court’S Free-Speech Absolutism, Spencer Bradley
Whose Market Is It Anyway? A Philosophy And Law Critique Of The Supreme Court’S Free-Speech Absolutism, Spencer Bradley
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In the wake of Charlottesville, the rise of the alt-right, and campus controversies, the First Amendment has fallen into public scrutiny. Historically, the First Amendment’s “marketplace of ideas” has been a driving source of American political identity; since Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment protects all speech from government interference unless it causes incitement. The marketplace of ideas allows for the good and the bad ideas to enter American society and ultimately allows the people to decide their own course.
Yet, is the First Amendment truly a tool of social progress? Initially, the First Amendment curtailed war-time dissidents and …
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 …