Law Commons^™

Bordenkircher V. Hayes: Ignoring Prosecutorial Abuses In Plea Bargaining, Stephen F. Ross

Journal Articles

In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction on a charge the prosecutor admittedly filed solely because the defendant refused to plead guilty to another set of charges. Hayes is a sudden departure from a line of cases in which the Court refused to allow prosecutorial charging decisions to be made to discourage a criminal defendant from exercising constitutional or procedural rights. The decision effectively removes plea bargaining from its constitutional premise: the "mutuality of advantage" between the prosecutor and the defendant. Rather than approving the broad exercise of prosecutorial discretion in plea negotiations, the …

The Development Of The Federal Law Of Gambling, G. Robert Blakey, Harold A. Kurland

Journal Articles

The Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling, believing that the States should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders, recently suggested that the federal government should prevent interference by one State with the gambling policies of another, and should act to protect identifiable national interests.

Although this broad recommendation reinforces the role the federal government has traditionally played in regulating gambling, the Commission also proposed specific amendments to the cur- rent federal gambling laws. Should Congress act upon the Commission's report or otherwise attempt a comprehensive …

Sentencing In Indiana: Appellate Review Of The Trial Court's Discretion, John Eric Smithburn

Journal Articles

Two significant developments, legislative and judicial, have taken place in Indiana criminal law in recent months which may offer an effective response to the problem of unguided discretionary sentencing. The Indiana Penal Code has been revised to require that the trial court, before sentencing a convicted felon, conduct a separate hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence and to make a record of the hearing which must include a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence imposed. The General Assembly has also provided specific directives which the trial court must consider in determining a proper sentence …

The Mistake Of Fact Defense And The Reasonableness Requirement, Margaret F. Brinig

Journal Articles

This article examines specifically the mistake of fact defense and its disparate treatment under these two systems of justice. The British approach is to retain a subjective element in the mistake of fact defense, while American courts impose an objective "reasonableness" requirement. The substantive criminal law approach, utilizing the concept of mens rea, will be discussed first, and will be followed by a treatment of recent American constitutional developments in the area of burden of proof standards in their criminal context. Finally, two factually similar rape cases, one British and one American, will be analyzed to show the present contrasting …