Digital Commons Network^™

The Felony-Murder Rule: A Doctrine At Constitutional Crossroads, Nelson E. Roth, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

"Plain Crazy:" Lay Definitions Of Legal Insanity, Valerie P. Hans, Dan Slater

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The 1982 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr., would-be assassin of President Reagan, again has brought to the forefront long-standing public dissatisfaction in the United States with the insanity plea. In the wake of the Hinckley verdict, proposals for reform or abolition of the insanity defense have been submitted to both houses of the U.S. Congress and to state legislatures throughout the nation (Cunningham, 1983). Fueling this reform movement is apparent public dissatisfaction with the insanity plea as it is currently defined.

In contrast to voluminous literature concerning legal and psychiatric …

New York V. Quarles:The "Public Safety" Exception To Miranda, John Randolph Bode

University of Richmond Law Review

In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court attempted to limit the exclusionary sanction provided under Miranda v. Arizona. Quarles is a significant decision in the criminal procedure area not only because of the exception which it establishes, but because it represents "a legitimate effort by the Burger Court to reconcile the realities of effective law enforcement with the often hyper technical rules of criminal justice." Many observers have interpreted the Quarles decision as the long-awaited fruition of the conservatism now presiding over the Burger Court. However, the setting for Quarles can be traced back to the Miranda decision itself.

Rethinking Self-Incrimination In Great Britain, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Winfield V. Commonwealth: The Application Of The Virginia Rape Shield Statute, Philip L. Hatchett

University of Richmond Law Review

In Winfield v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the state's recently enacted rape shield statute could not restrict or infringe upon the defendant's sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to confront his accusers. In overruling the trial judge, the court stated that section 18.2-67.7 of the Code of Virginia actually expanded the admissibility of evidence related to specific prior sexual conduct of the prosecutrix. By this ruling, Virginia has joined a minority of jurisdictions which have refused to recognize the special dilemma of the prosecutrix in a rape trial and to grant additional protections under her …

Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …

Miranda: The Case, The Man, And The Players, Yale Kamisar

Reviews

On the eve of America's bicentennial, the American Bar Association told its members of a plan to publish a book about the "milestone events" in 200 years of American legal history, and invited them to vote on the milestones to be included. When the balloting was over, Miranda v. Arizona1 - "the high-water mark" of the Warren Court's revolution in American criminal procedure2 - had received the fourth highest number of votes.3 I venture to say that if members of the general public had been asked to list the "most regrettable" or "most unfortunate" milestones in American legal history, Miranda …

Criminal Procedure - Removing The Third Option From The Jury - State V. Strickland, Lisa Boutelle Hardin

Campbell Law Review

Prior to the North Carolina Supreme Court's holding in State v. Strickland, the rule governing second degree murder jury instructions in a first degree murder case was clear. In all murder cases in which the prosecution relied on the elements of premeditation and deliberation to prove that first degree murder had been committed, the trial judge was required to submit the issue of second degree murder to the jury. This rule came from the Court's unanimous decision in State v. Harris. The Court adhered to this rule in several later cases until it heard Strickland in 1983. Apparently …

The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that once the defendant raises a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim that turns on a question of fact, the government should have the burden of proving that the two crimes charged are actually different. Part I traces the development of the law and the major factors behind recent federal court scrutiny of the traditional rule. Part II argues that constitutional considerations require courts to shift the burden of proof to the government, not only when practical considerations suggest the shift, but in all cases turning on questions of fact. Finally, Part III reconciles this allocation with the well-established …

Press-Enterprise Co. V. Superior Court Of California, Riverside County, Lewis F. Powell Jr

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Parole Board: What Liability To Victims?, Keith Jobson

Dalhousie Law Journal

What is the legal position of a victim of crime who is assaulted and severely injured by a person on parole release? The victim, of course, has a right to sue his or her assailant personally in tort for damages, but does the victim have a right to sue the prison and parole agencies for negligence in releasing or in supervising the offender? The victim's right to recovery against the authorities requires an examination of the right to damages in an action in negligence under the common law, as well as consideration of a possible remedy under the Charter of …

Finding An Optimum Legal Policy Level: The Undesirability Of Doing Too Much Or Too Little In The Law, Stuart S. Nagel

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limitations On Postarrest, Prehearing Detention

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pretrial Bail: A Deprivation Of Liberty Or Property With Due Process Of Law

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Vetting: The Jury Under Attack, Peter Duff, Mark Findlay

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The English jury has recently been undergoing various alterations. These changes have their roots in assumptions, often not clearly identified, about the nature and purpose of the jury within the criminal justice system. Once the purpose and ideals of the jury system are identified, and there may be arguments about what they are,' it becomes apparent that there may be a conflict about how they should be put into practice. The state and its agencies may take one view whilst others may differ. An example of one such conflict is the controversy over the newly discovered practice of 'jury vetting'.

What Now For The Insanity Defense?, Fernand N. Dutile, Thomas H. Singer

Journal Articles

The jury's verdict of acquittal by reason of insanity in the case of President Reagan's attempted assassination has stirred vivid debate, both in and out of the U.S. Congress and other public bodies. This article will briefly discuss the history of the insanity defense in the United States, the current status of that defense, and some major problems remaining in its use.

Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note approves of efforts to avoid hung juries by giving lesser included offense instructions but opposes those instructions that restrict juror decisions and coerce minority jurors. Rather, this Note offers a lesser included offense instruction that promotes flexibility and jury compromise without undermining the deliberative process. Part I describes the problem of hung juries and how courts have tried to prevent them with restrictive lesser included offense instructions. Part II analyzes the coercive impact of restrictive lesser included offense instructions and concludes that an instruction conditioning deliberations upon individual juror disagreement better promotes compromises on the merits while reducing …

Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when lesser included offense instructions are available under state law but were not given. Part I demonstrates that granting such review conforms to the modern jurisdictional scope of federal collateral review because failure to give the instructions undermines the fact-finding function of juries and is therefore unconstitutional. Part II analyzes the proper standard of review and determines that the federal interest in protecting the reliability of the fact-finding process should prevail over any conflicting state interest in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions. Part II …

Good Faith, The Exclusionary Remedy, And Rule-Oriented Adjudication In The Criminal Process, Gerald G. Ashdown

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus: Its History And Its Future, Charles Alan Wright

Michigan Law Review

A Review of A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus by William F. Duker

Vi. Criminal Law & Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exploring The Roots Of Our Criminal Justice Systems, Samuel Walker

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Roots of Justice by Lawrence M. Friedman and Robert V. Percival, and Conscience and Convenience by David Rothman

Watching The Judiciary Watch The Police, Jon O. Newman

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Police Practices and the Law: Essays from the Michigan Law ReviewThe University of Michigan Press

The Right To Bail In United States Extradition Proceedings, Carl A. Valenstein

Michigan Journal of International Law

This note examines the judicial rationale for denying bail in extradition proceedings except in special circumstances. The author maintains that the courts apply the special circumstances rule inconsistently. Moreover, a better balance should be struck between the interests of the accused and the interests of the United States Government. This can be accomplished by granting the accused in an extradition proceeding the same right to bail before a final order granting extradition as exists under the federal bail statute.

Inanimate Listening Devices: A Violation Of Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Kathleen M. Maicher

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Note: Probation Revocation In Maryland: The Effect Of Nonfinal And Reversed Criminal Convictions

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Proposal For Discovery Depositions For Criminal Cases In Illinois, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1983), James J. Graney

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sixth Amendment: Limiting The Use Of Peremptory Challenges, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 349 (1983), Robert Mork

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bowman V. Leverette: Retroactivity Of Criminal Procedure Decisions, Mary Sanders Richards, John Michael Hedges

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dilemma Of Criminal Responsibility, David L. Bazelon

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.