Law Commons^™

The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), an exception to the rule against admission of hearsay, permits introduction of public records or reports containing the fact findings of the reporter without requiring the reporter to appear at trial. These fact findings can be based upon the reporter's own observations and calculations or information imparted to the reporter from sources having no connection to any public agency whatsoever. Rule 803(8)(C) has also been used as the vehicle for presenting juries with fact findings from hearings conducted by public officials. The rule would seem to allow these fact findings even though the opponent had …

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

Note: United States V. Harvey: Are Criminal Defense Fees More Vulnerable Than Necessary?, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

In United States v. Harvey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Congress may not constitutionally require convicted racketeers and drug traffickers to forfeit property used to pay legitimate defense attorney fees. To the extent that such forfeitures and related pre-conviction restraints on transfer are authorized by provisions of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (the Act), those provisions violate an accused's right to counsel of choice as secured by the Sixth Amendment.This article argues that the court's holding in Harvey was more narrowly drawn than necessary, and that as a consequence criminal defense attorney …

Whatever Happened To The "Right To Know?": The Right Of Access To Government-Controlled Information Since Richmond Newspapers On Those Who Don't, Michael Hayes

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Commentary: Rummel V. Estelle: Mockingbirds Among The Brethren, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

In this commentary Professor Lasson discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Rummel v. Estelle and reveals a poignant personal memorandum that reflects the analysis of human values necessarily performed by whichever Justice cast the deciding vote.

Constitutionalizing Forfeiture Law—The German Example, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

This article demonstrates how German criminal law has made forfeiture of objects used in crime consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Bane Of American Forfeiture Law—Banished At Last?, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

This article refutes the claimed historical bases for criminal law in rem forfeiture.

Survey Of Criminal Procedure — Alternative Dispositions Of Defendants, Charles Shafer

All Faculty Scholarship

The criminal justice system provides various alternatives for the disposition of criminal defendants. Three of these alternatives, pretrial intervention, drug treatment, and probation, were dealt with in recent New Jersey Supreme Court decisions. The court examined the substantive criteria and procedures used in assigning each disposition and focused primarily on the desire to provide rehabilitative opportunities for each defendant. This note will examine those decisions and the implications of the court's concentration on the goal of rehabilitation.

Comments And Casenotes: To Kill A Mockingbird - Star Decisis And M'Naghten In Maryland, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

There are certain pillars of jurisprudence which, despite the erosive elements of time and progress, remain sacred. After more than a century of judicial dialogue the venerable M'Naghten Rule survives as the prevailing test to determine criminal responsibility. The rule states: "To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know …