Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bail Reform Act (1)
- Barbee v. Warden (1)
- Bellfield v. Commonwealth (1)
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- Brown v. Allen (1)
-
- Carlson v. Landon (1)
- Chapman v. California (1)
- Estelle v. Williams (1)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1)
- Francis v. Henderson (1)
- Frankv. Mangum (1)
- Freeman v. Zahradnick (1)
- Garrison v. Maggio (1)
- Great Writ (1)
- Griffin v. Illinois (1)
- Illinois Ten Percent Deposit Plan (1)
- In re Winship (1)
- Jackson v. Virginia (1)
- Judiciary Act (1)
- Kaufman v. United States (1)
- Levin v. Katzenbach (1)
- Manhattan Bail Project (1)
- Mooney v. Holohan (1)
- Moore v. Dempsey (1)
- Pyle v. Kansas (1)
- Stack v. Boyle (1)
- Stone v. Powell (1)
- Stover v. Commonwealth (1)
- Thompson v. Dye (1)
- Thompson v. Louisville (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Exploring The Limits Of Brady V. Maryland: Criminal Discovery As A Due Process Right In Access To Police Investigations And State Crime Laboratories, Walter H. Ohar
University of Richmond Law Review
Why not criminal discovery? This question has been posited by legal scholars and learned jurists alike since the liberalization of discovery methods under the modern codes of civil procedure. As inexact as the term criminal discovery may be and, according to its critics, as inapplicable as discovery may be in the criminal context, there is little doubt that the current trend is the expansion of that which is discoverable by either side prior to a criminal trial. In fact, criminal discovery has developed into something more than a problem of procedure to be resolved by the individual jurisdictions in piecemeal …
Filling In The Gaps Of Virginia Bail Reform, R. Bryan Hatchett
Filling In The Gaps Of Virginia Bail Reform, R. Bryan Hatchett
University of Richmond Law Review
The 1960's and early 1970's witnessed an unprecedented reform of the bail laws of this country. The reform has made it possible for a greater percentage of criminal defendants to be released before trial thereby avoiding the stigma and considerable prejudice flowing from incarceration. Even though the reform has also produced a modest increase in the number of persons who fail to appear for trial, on balance critical response to the reform has been favorable.
Federal Habeas Corpus: Greater Protection For "Innocent" State Prisoners After Jackson V. Virginia, Jennie L. Montgomery
Federal Habeas Corpus: Greater Protection For "Innocent" State Prisoners After Jackson V. Virginia, Jennie L. Montgomery
University of Richmond Law Review
In Jackson v. Virginia, the Burger Court recently made an apparent "about face" with regard to the scope of powers extended to a federal habeas corpus court reviewing a state court conviction. On the basis of this ruling, habeas corpus petitioners may now demand federal court examination of whether the evidence produced at their trials was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson is, therefore, a significant step beyond the Warren Court rule that due process is violated only when the record is totally devoid of any evidence to support the conviction.