Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pretrial And Error: The Use Of Statements Inadmissible At Trial In Preliminary Proceedings, Erin Hughes
Pretrial And Error: The Use Of Statements Inadmissible At Trial In Preliminary Proceedings, Erin Hughes
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
This Note argues that a “criminal case,” as provided by the Fifth Amendment, begins with the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings, whether that commencement occurs through a formal charge, a preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. A broad understanding of the Fifth Amendment’s scope aligns with the Second, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits’ analysis. In particular, this Note endorses the in-depth analysis provided by the Tenth Circuit in its determination that a “criminal case” under the Fifth Amendment includes preliminary proceedings. This Note further offers an analysis of past Supreme Court precedent as well as policy rationales that support …
Campus Sexual Assault And Due Process, Ilana Frier
Campus Sexual Assault And Due Process, Ilana Frier
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
College women experience rape and sexual assault at alarmingly high rates. One highly publicized statistic, famously asserted by President Obama, states that one in five women experience sexual assault while attending college. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education radically expanded its involvement in campus sexual misconduct adjudications, encouraging vigorous enforcement. Sustained regulatory and public pressure effectuated some positive change for victims. However, a proliferation of litigation also followed. Students found responsible of campus sexual assault, most of whom were males, increasingly began suing their schools alleging due process violations in their adjudications. In 2018, the Trump administration's Department of …
Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen
Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and federal governments for the same conduct, due to the fact that the state and federal government constitute two separate sovereignties. The doctrine is grounded in the idea that each sovereign derives its power from independent sources—the federal government from the Constitution and the states from their inherent police power, preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment—and thus, each sovereign may determine what constitutes an offense against its peace and dignity in an exercise of its own sovereignty. Under this exception, defendants, by a single act, may …
What Is The Relevant Parcel? Clarifying The "Parcel As A Whole" Standard In Murr V. Wisconsin, Gavin S. Frisch
What Is The Relevant Parcel? Clarifying The "Parcel As A Whole" Standard In Murr V. Wisconsin, Gavin S. Frisch
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Murr v. Wisconsin seeks to determine whether commonly-owned, adjacent parcels of land are considered as 1 or 2 parcels for purposes of analyzing a regulatory takings claim. Nearly 40 years ago, the Court in Penn Central rejected a property owner's takings claim which segmenting the entire parcel into discrete property rights because a compensatory taking must result from governmental action which interferes with the "parcel as a whole." In Murr, property owners argue that a local zoning ordinance effected a taking of one of their two adjoining parcels because the ordinance prohibited the owners from developing their lot. I …
Violating Equal Protection: Lynch V. Morales-Santana And The Ina’S Sex Discriminatory Physical Presence Requirement, Courtney Magnus
Violating Equal Protection: Lynch V. Morales-Santana And The Ina’S Sex Discriminatory Physical Presence Requirement, Courtney Magnus
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Lynch v. Morales-Santana, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Immigration and Nationality Act’s physical presence requirement scheme violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(c) (1952), an unwed U.S. citizen father wishing to convey citizenship at-birth to his child born abroad cannot do so unless he has been physically present in the United States for ten years prior to the child’s birth. In contrast, an unwed citizen mother only needs to be physically present for one continuous year. This commentary argues that because §§ 1401 and 1409 facially discriminate against unwed …