Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Law—Freedom Of The Press—Newsman's Privilege To Refuse Disclosure Of Confidential Sources In Criminal Trial—Farr V. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. Denied, 98 S. Ct. 3200 (1976), Brian A. Morrison
Washington Law Review
Although interpreting prior case law to create a limited constitutional newsman's privilege, the Farr court did not adequately weigh the appropriate competing interests in denying the reporter's privilege to protect the confidentiality of his sources. This note will suggest that the court's overreliance upon the fair trial interest and its failure to analyze the newsman's testimonial privilege precluded the court from effectively utilizing the balancing test it stated to be applicable. As will be demonstrated, evaluation of the first amendment interest, when weighed against the opposing need for disclosure, should have led to a contrary decision in Farr.
The New Dimensions Of Constitutional Adjudication, Archibald Cox
The New Dimensions Of Constitutional Adjudication, Archibald Cox
Washington Law Review
The new dimensions to which my title refers are of a different order; they are not substantive but institutional. That the Supreme Court has always played a partly political role—that it has always made a certain amount of public policy in some areas under the guise of interpreting the Constitution—is all too obvious. That it has usually felt partly bound by "law" is equally obvious to anyone who understands the self-discipline of the legal method. The question of emphasis always remains. How large or small is—or should be—the political element in judicial decisions? There also remains a second question. How …
Constitutional Law—Due Process—Civil Commitment—Absent Treatment, A Nondangerous Mentally Ill Person Able To Survive Safely In Society Has A Constitutional Right To Release—O'Connor V. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), Sheila M. Burnstein
Washington Law Review
Plaintiff Kenneth Donaldson, a former state mental patient, brought an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 in federal district court against five state hospital officials alleged to have intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his constitutional right to liberty. Despite repeated efforts to secure his release, the plaintiff was confined in a Florida state mental hospital for nearly fifteen years following his civil commitment in 1957 for care, maintenance, and treatment. Although the plaintiff was provided with routine custodial care during his hospital stay, he received no psychiatric treatment for his presumed mental illness. Contending that the defendants …