Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Criminal Law-Federal System Adopts Specific Parameters For The Constitutional Right To A Speedy Trial
University of Richmond Law Review
The right of every criminal defendant to a speedy trial is deeply entrenched in our legal heritage and is specifically included in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. However, though the guarantee of a speedy trial is quite explicit, the courts generally have been confused as to the precise extent of this right. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not expressly recognize the right as fundamental until 1967, and until 1972 had provided no guidelines for determining whether a defendant had been denied the right to a speedy trial. The Court at that time refused to set specific …
Has The Burger Court Dealt A Death Blow To The Presumption Of Malice In Virginia?
Has The Burger Court Dealt A Death Blow To The Presumption Of Malice In Virginia?
University of Richmond Law Review
While presumptions and burdens of proof have generally eluded effective analysis, the presumption of malice has almost defied it. Notwithstanding a common law origin and the significance that instructions of the presumption of malice have played in many murder trials in Virginia, the presumption has constantly been under attack. This comment will explore the meaning of the presumption of malice and determine whether Virginia's approach violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment in light of the recent Supreme Court decision of Mullaney v. Wilbur.
Capital Punishment: Constitutional Parameters For The Ultimate Penalty, James F. Stutts
Capital Punishment: Constitutional Parameters For The Ultimate Penalty, James F. Stutts
University of Richmond Law Review
Four years after Furmanv. Georgia, the Supreme Court has resolved the major question left unanswered by that decision - does capital punishment per se constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment? The Court also announced the statutory standards which satisfy Furman's requirement that the death penalty not be imposed arbitrarily or capriciously. By a 7-2 vote, the Court held that the imposition of the death penalty for murder did not per se constitute cruel and unusual punishment. By the same vote, the Court upheld the capital sentencing statutes of Georgia, Florida and Texas, noting that arbitrary …