Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
Scholarly Works
This article examines the effect of Oregon v. Kennedy on the Burger Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence in cases where government misconduct has interfered with the integrity of a first trial. The article proposes the complete elimination of current distinctions between mistrial and appellate reversal cases for double jeopardy analysis, on the ground that those distinctions no longer have intellectual or practical support. Moreover, against the contention of the Court in Oregon v. Kennedy that any test for overreaching necessarily would be standardless, this article proposes the adoption of a "plain error" standard. Under this test, "plain" government error, engaged in …
A Due Process Of Judicially-Authorized Presumptions In Federal Aggravated Bank Robbery Cases, James F. Ponsoldt
A Due Process Of Judicially-Authorized Presumptions In Federal Aggravated Bank Robbery Cases, James F. Ponsoldt
Scholarly Works
Within the past fifteen years several broadly-focused articles have identified general constitutional limits, under the due process clause, on presumptions and inferences created by statute or applied by courts in trying criminal cases. Recently, in County Court of Ulster County, New York v. Allen , the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the evidentiary devices of inference and presumptions and labeled them "a staple of our adversary system of factfinding." This suggest that to unreasonably curtail the use of circumstantial evidence in the factfinding process would place an intolerable burden on prosecutors in their efforts to prove guilt beyond a …