Law Commons^™

Criminal Law, Frank C. Mills Iii

Mercer Law Review

In the hundreds of cases reviewed for this survey, there were few earthshaking decisions. DNA evidence has arrived in Georgia, and the year and- a-day rule has left. Nevertheless, there are more noteworthy cases than can be adequately addressed in this survey. There are plenty of pitfalls for the unwary. In fact the most notable trend is the ever-increasing number of challenges to former counsel. Prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts are well-advised to use the Checklist for Unified Appeals as a guide in any criminal case.

Due to the significance of the Checklist for Unified Appeal, the author uses a …

Burnham V. Superior Court Of California The Transient Jurisdiction Rule's Much Prophesied Death Sentence Is Commuted To Life, Todd P. Davis

Mercer Law Review

In Burnham v. Superior Court of California, the Supreme Court attempted to determine whether the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment denied a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the state. The Court, however, could only concur in the judgment issued by the lower court because it failed to agree upon the method of analysis necessary to resolve the issue before it. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of …

Minnick V. Mississippi: Additional Protection For The Criminal Defendant, Gabe Hotard Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Minnick v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court held that when counsel is requested by an accused in custody, interrogation of the accused must cease, and officials may not re-initiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney. The privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the fifth amendment and as developed into its modern form nearly a quarter-century ago in Miranda v. Arizona provided the backbone of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's holding clarifies the previously unclear issue of whether counsel's presence on behalf of an accused is required at any interrogation …