Law Commons^™

Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Interim Hearing On Marijuana Cultivation, Senate Committee On Judiciary

California Senate

No abstract provided.

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 …

Schall V. Martin, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

James V. Kentucky, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Minnesota V. Murphy, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Segura V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Leon, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Strickland V. Washington, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Karo, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Berkemer V. Mccarty, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Hudson V. Palmer, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Oliver V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Clifford, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Welsh V. Wisconsin, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Patton V. Yount, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Press-Enterprise Co. V. Superior Court Of California, Riverside County, Lewis F. Powell Jr

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

09-20-1983 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

SUMMARY: Resps move to have the costs retaxed against petrs. Petrs have filed opposition.

07-06-1983 Justice Marshall, Concurring, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE STEVENS, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join as to Parts I. II, and III, concurring in the judgment in part. and with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE STEVENS join as to Part IV.

07-06-1983 Justice Powell, Dissenting And Concurring, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join as to Parts I and II, dissenting in part and with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join as to Part III, concurring in part.

07-06-1983 Per Curiam, Unknown Justice

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Petitioners in this case administer a deferred compensation plan for employees of the State of Arizona. The respondent class consists of all female employees who are enrolled in the plan or will enroll in the plan in the future. Certiorari was granted to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits an employer from offering its employees the option of receiving retirement benefits from one of several companies selected by the employer, all of which pay a woman lower monthly retirement benefits than a man …

07-05-1983 Correspondence From Marshall To Burger, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Chief:

This is a Per Curiam and following custom should be announced by you. I see no reason to change this procedure.

07-05-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

My sense of the Conference was that we agreed that, in order to forestall confusion in the insurance industry, the following statement should be added to the per curiam opinion.

07-05-1983 Correspondence From Marshall To Burger, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Chief:

I have you memorandum concerning the latest suggested addition to the Per Curiam opinion.

07-01-1983 Correspondence From Powell To O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Sandra:

I agree with your suggestion that the mandate issue on August 1.

07-01-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Once more -- I apologize to each of you. On the ninth line from the bottom of the proposed Per Curiam, there appears "and IV-A". This is not correct and should be deleted. There is no "IV-A" in the first draft of my opinion.

07-01-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Sandra Day O'Connor

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

With reference to the effective date of the judgment, Frank Lorson suggested the following language could be added as the last sentence of the per curiam if the Conference so desires:

John Hinckley, Jr. And The Insanity Defense: The Public's Verdict, Valerie P. Hans, Dan Slater

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Public furor over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. already has stimulated legal changes in the insanity defense. This study documents more systematically the dimensions of negative public opinion concerning the Hinckley verdict. A survey of Delaware residents shortly after the trial's conclusion indicated that the verdict was perceived as unfair, Hinckley was viewed as not insane, the psychiatrists' testimony at the trial was not trusted, and the vast majority thought that the insanity defense was a loophole. However, survey respondents were unable to define the legal test for insanity and …

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 …

06-30-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I think TM's suggested per curiam is a proper way of handling this mess. There is one error, however. Seven lines from the bottom, the phrase "which is joined" should read "which are joined" since it is the referenced Parts, rather than TM's opinion, which have been joined by the listed Justices. I assume both TM and LP are making the necessary changes in their own opinions .