Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Criminal Litigation, Andrew H. Marshall
Constitutional Criminal Litigation, Andrew H. Marshall
Mercer Law Review
During 1980 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided well over 200 cases in the constitutional law/criminal area, including direct criminal appeals, collateral attacks on both state and federal criminal convictions, and a handful of cases arising in other contexts. The typical opinion addresses and resolves multiple assignments of error, which compounds the difficulty of organizing decisions into precise, discrete categories. The quantity and diversity of litigation in the area requires that a survey be limited to a fraction of the decided cases. The selection process utilized in the preparation of this survey can only be …
United States V. Di Francesco: Court Upholds State Initiated Sentence Appeals, Thomas Michael Hackel
United States V. Di Francesco: Court Upholds State Initiated Sentence Appeals, Thomas Michael Hackel
Mercer Law Review
In United States v. Di Francesco, the Supreme Court upheld a statute that allowed the government to seek, through an appeal, an increase of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court found that the statute did not violate the protections of the double jeopardy clause against multiple trials and multiple punishment. The question of state initiated appeals assumes further significance when it is considered that proposed revisions of the Federal Criminal Code include wider implementation of sentence appeals by the state.
Liability For Parole Decisionmaking: The Absence Of Discretion In The Parole Process, Robert F. Polglase
Liability For Parole Decisionmaking: The Absence Of Discretion In The Parole Process, Robert F. Polglase
Mercer Law Review
In Payton v. United States, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the parole of a federal prisoner who, following release, murdered plaintiff's wife. The court concluded that such parole decisionmaking did not come within the discretionary function exemption of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).