Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Crimes-Withdrawal Of A Plea Of Guilty
Crimes-Withdrawal Of A Plea Of Guilty
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was charged with the violation of the prohibition law, to which he pleaded guilty. About two months after this plea was in, he filed a motion to withdraw it, and substituted one of not guilty. In support of this motion he set up that he had not been advised of his constitutional rights to have counsel; that the arresting officers told him the case would be heard in a federal court, and his punishment would be light; and that he was unaware of the liquor being in his car (which claim was subsequently disproved by the evidence). The motion …
Preliminary Report On Observance And Enforcement Of Prohibition And The Report Supplemental Thereto, Edson R. Sunderland
Preliminary Report On Observance And Enforcement Of Prohibition And The Report Supplemental Thereto, Edson R. Sunderland
Michigan Law Review
The Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement was organized on May 28, 1929. Within six months it issued a Preliminary Report on Observance and Enforcement of Prohibition, under date of November 21, 1929, and shortly thereafter issued a Report supplemental thereto.
Crimes-Sentence-Suspension Of Execution
Crimes-Sentence-Suspension Of Execution
Michigan Law Review
The defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment for larceny. He was fined and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of thirty days. Both fine and sentence were conditionally suspended. At a subsequent term, the court, finding that the condition had been violated, ordered the execution of the sentence. Held, that although a court has no power to suspend the execution of a sentence, by making the conditional order of suspension the power later to enforce its judgment was lost. Ex parte Steinmetz (Ohio App. 1930) 172 N.E. 623.
Crimes-Former Jeopardy-Prosecution In Two Counties For A Continuous Act
Crimes-Former Jeopardy-Prosecution In Two Counties For A Continuous Act
Michigan Law Review
Defendants transported liquor by a single, uninterrupted act from A county to B county in the same state. Having been convicted and fined in B county for the transportation within its boundaries, they were later indicted in A county for that part of the transportation which took place in that territory. A plea of former jeopardy was sustained by the trial judge, and on appeal this holding was affirmed by a divided court, which held, the act constituted a single offense, punishable in either county, but not in both. State v. Shimman et al. (Ohio, 1930) 172 N.E. 367.