Law Commons^™

Preventative Pretrial Detention And The Failure Of Interest-Balancing Approaches To Due Process, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

This article, echoing Highmore's treatise of 1783, maintains that neither a legitimate nor a very important governmental interest can justify preventive detention in the absence of significant proof of past wrongdoing or an inability to control one's behavior. Both the Supreme Court's neglect of this issue and Congress' similar neglect in the preventive detention provisions of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 reveal the extent to which cost-benefit analysis has captured American law and threatened core concepts of individual dignity.

The article does not oppose all forms of preventive pretrial detention. To the contrary, it recognizes that the detention …

Constitutional Law—Due Process—Garnishment Procedures Must Provide For Notice To Postjudgment Debtor, Kathleen A. Hillegas

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Criminal Procedure—Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of The Insane, Jonathan Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Digest, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS OF CLERGY OF VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN

--Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Reagan, 786 F.2d 194 (3d Cir.1986)

===========

EVEN THOUGH PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY TAKE MORE TIME AND MAY YIELD A SMALLER RECOVERY THAN PROCEEDING IN THE UNITED STATES FORUM, THE FOREIGN FORUM MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FORRUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

--De Melo v. Lederle Laboratories, 801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1986)

===============

ASSERTION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA OVER AN …

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

Constitutional Law-Fourth Amendment-Use Of Deadly Force To Seize Fleeing Felony Suspects (Tennessee V. Garner), Georgia Mcmillen

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.