Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Law (388)
- Criminal Law (147)
- Criminal Procedure (85)
- Constitutional Law (76)
- Evidence (33)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (30)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (20)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (19)
- First Amendment (19)
- Courts (13)
- Law and Society (13)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (13)
- Environmental Law (12)
- Administrative Law (11)
- Fourth Amendment (11)
- Jurisprudence (11)
- Law and Psychology (11)
- Legislation (11)
- Health Law and Policy (9)
- Juvenile Law (9)
- Military, War, and Peace (9)
- International Law (8)
- Civil Procedure (7)
- Jurisdiction (7)
- Legal Remedies (7)
- Human Rights Law (6)
- Torts (6)
- Education Law (5)
- Family Law (5)
- Judges (5)
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (43)
- Criminal Law (37)
- Criminal Procedure (30)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (17)
- Due Process (16)
-
- Drug traffic (12)
- Evidence (10)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- Equal Protection (9)
- Legislation (9)
- Professional Ethics (9)
- Civil Rights (8)
- Courts (8)
- Sentences (Criminal procedure) (8)
- Administrative Law (7)
- Corrections (7)
- Federal Courts (7)
- Sentencing guidelines (Criminal procedure) (7)
- Criminal law (6)
- Pennsylvania (6)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (5)
- Fourth Amendment (5)
- Habeas Corpus (5)
- Self-incrimination (5)
- Arrest Information (4)
- Attorneys (4)
- Computerization of Information (4)
- Criminals -- Rehabilitation (4)
- Drug Addicts (4)
- Drugs (4)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (288)
- The Gavel Gazette (54)
- Faculty Publications (45)
- 2009 Decisions (30)
- 2011 Decisions (29)
-
- 2008 Decisions (28)
- 2010 Decisions (27)
- Working Paper Series (27)
- 2014 Decisions (26)
- 2017 Decisions (26)
- 2007 Decisions (25)
- The Docket (25)
- 2018 Decisions (23)
- 2006 Decisions (22)
- 2024 Decisions (22)
- 2005 Decisions (21)
- 2019 Decisions (21)
- 2015 Decisions (20)
- 2012 Decisions (19)
- 2021 Decisions (19)
- Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal (1994 - ) (19)
- 2003 Decisions (18)
- 2016 Decisions (18)
- 2002 Decisions (16)
- 2004 Decisions (16)
- 2020 Decisions (16)
- 2013 Decisions (15)
- 2001 Decisions (14)
- 1995 Decisions (13)
- 2026 Decisions (13)
- Publication Type
Articles 661 - 690 of 1163
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Irrelevance, And Central Relevance, Of The Boundary Between Science And Non-Science In The Evaluation Of Expert Witness Reliability, D. Michael Risinger
The Irrelevance, And Central Relevance, Of The Boundary Between Science And Non-Science In The Evaluation Of Expert Witness Reliability, D. Michael Risinger
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing In The Post-Blakely Era, Douglas A. Berman, Steven L. Chanenson
The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing In The Post-Blakely Era, Douglas A. Berman, Steven L. Chanenson
Working Paper Series
Soon after the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington declared certain judicial fact-finding within a state sentencing guideline system unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor described the Court’s decision as a “Number 10 earthquake.” But two years after the Blakely ruling, the case’s broader impact and meaning for state criminal justice systems around the country has been largely overshadowed by developments in the federal sentencing system. Nevertheless, this is an exciting time for state sentencing. By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. Cunningham, this past spring, the Supreme Court brings state issues to the national stage once more.
State …
The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding
The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding
Working Paper Series
Brain-damaged defendants are seen everyday in American courtrooms, and in many cases, their criminal behavior appears to be the product of extremely poor judgment and self-control. Some have a disorder in the frontal lobes, the area of the brain responsible for judgment and impulse control. Yet because defendants suffering from frontal lobe dysfunction usually understand the difference between right and wrong, they are unable to avail themselves of the only insanity defense available in many states, a defense based on the narrow McNaghten test. “Irresistible impulse” (or “control”) tests, on the other hand, provide an insanity defense to those who …
September 23, 2006 (Pages 5861-5954), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
September 23, 2006 (Pages 5861-5954), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Volume 36 (2006)
No abstract provided.
September 16, 2006 (Pages 5765-5860), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
September 16, 2006 (Pages 5765-5860), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Volume 36 (2006)
No abstract provided.
Azuakoemu V. Atty Gen Usa
2006 Decisions
USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
August 5, 2006 (Pages 4151-4446), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
August 5, 2006 (Pages 4151-4446), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Volume 36 (2006)
No abstract provided.
Toussaint V. Atty Gen Usa
2006 Decisions
USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
June 17, 2006 (Pages 2945-3076), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
June 17, 2006 (Pages 2945-3076), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Volume 36 (2006)
No abstract provided.
Rules Are Made To Be Broken: How The Process Of Expedited Removal Fails Asylum Seekers, Michele R. Pistone, John J. Hoeffner Esq.
Rules Are Made To Be Broken: How The Process Of Expedited Removal Fails Asylum Seekers, Michele R. Pistone, John J. Hoeffner Esq.
Working Paper Series
Immigration inspectors are authorized to deport persons who arrive at U.S. ports without valid travel documents. This process, which usually occurs within 48 hours and does not allow for judicial review, is called expedited removal. This article begins by summarizing the findings of the few studies allowed access to the process. The authors extrapolate from the studies to demonstrate that thousands of genuine asylum seekers have erroneously been deported via expedited removal. The greatest cause of erroneous deportation is a failure by the agency responsible for the process, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to follow its own rules. The heart …
Villanova University School Of Law Commencement Program - Class Of 2006, Class Of 2006
Villanova University School Of Law Commencement Program - Class Of 2006, Class Of 2006
Villanova University School of Law Commencements
The Program for the Commencement Exercises of the 51th graduating class of the Villanova University School of Law in 2006
April 22, 2006 (Pages 1835-1976), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
April 22, 2006 (Pages 1835-1976), Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Volume 36 (2006)
No abstract provided.
Evolution And Denial: State Sentencing After Blakely And Booker, Steven L. Chanenson, Daniel F. Wilhelm
Evolution And Denial: State Sentencing After Blakely And Booker, Steven L. Chanenson, Daniel F. Wilhelm
Working Paper Series
Justice Louis Brandeis famously described the states as laboratories where individual jurisdictions can experiment with various legal strategies. In the wake of Blakley v. Washington, and United States v. Booker those laboratories have been working overtime. Since June 2004, both state legislatures and state courts have grappled with the significance of the United States Supreme Court's treatment of the Sixth Amendment in sentencing. It is unsurprising, given the extraordinary significance and potential reach of Blakely and Booker, that this Herculean task has produced divergent results.
Although there are many potential ways to sort those results, for the purposes of these …
Adult Punishment For Juvenile Offenders: Does It Reduce Crime?, Richard E. Redding
Adult Punishment For Juvenile Offenders: Does It Reduce Crime?, Richard E. Redding
Working Paper Series
This chapter discusses the research on the general and specific deterrent effects of transferring juveniles for trial in adult criminal court, identifies gaps in our knowledge base that require further research, discusses the circumstances under which effective deterrence may be achieved, and examines whether there are effective alternatives for achieving deterrence other than adult sanctions for serious juvenile offenders. As a backdrop to this analysis, the chapter first examines the role of public opinion in shaping the get tough policies, and how policy makers have misunderstood and perceived support for these policies.