Law Commons^™

Insanity And Prevention: On Linking Culpability And Prevention In The Concept Of Insanity, Karl Lackner

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Controlling Felony Plea Bargaining In California: The Impact Of The "Victims' Bill Of Rights", California Department Of Justice, Candace Mccoy, J.D., Robert Tillman, Ph.D

California Agencies

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Richard A. Williamson

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

07-01-1986 Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff 's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984).

07-01-1986 Justice Brennan, Concurring, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN for a unanimous Court, concurring in part.

Chao V. State, 478 So. 2d (Fla. 1985), George C. Matlock

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Law/Evidence-ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY TESTIMONY ON OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS MADE TO A WITNESS THROUGH AN INTERPRETER

06-30-1986 Correspondence From Blackmun To Brennan, Harry A. Blackmun

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Bill:

I, of course, join you per curiam.

06-30-1986 Justice Brennan, Dissenting, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting in part.

06-30-1986 Justice Brennan, Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff 's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984). We …

Civil Rico Under Fire: Will White Collar Criminals Be Exempted?, Mark P. Cohen

Antioch Law Journal

On October 3, 1985, representatives of a coalition of over twenty public interest and consumer groups' marched in front of the Washington, D.C. law offices of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2 holding aloft a banner reading "Corporate Criminals Must Pay" and chanting "Put your clients away, let RICO stay." Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering was singled out as the spearhead of the business lobby seeking, in the coalition's view, to vitiate the effective civil provisions of the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" ("RICO"),3 in particular, its treble damage remedy. The goal of RICO, set out in the "Statement of Findings …

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach Criminal Defendants - Do The Risks Outweigh The Benefits?, James W. Betro

Antioch Law Journal

The use of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant-witness is generally accepted in most American jurisdictions.'Such evidence is allowed in order to present the jury with the general character of a witness so that they may be better able to decide as to his or her tendency to lie on the witness stand.2 The rationale behind this rule is based on the theory that a witness who has been previously convicted of a crime may be less likely to tell the truth than someone who has never been convicted.3 Unfortunately, when a criminal defendant takes the …

06-28-1986 Justice White, Concurring, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring.

06-27-1986 Correspondence From White To Brennan, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Bill,

I join your per curiam opinion in this case. I am making a change or two in my concurrence.

06-27-1986 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

I recommend you join the per curiam. I assume from the circulations that you're still counted as being with JUSTICE BRENNAN all the way .

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984).

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Dissenting, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting in part.

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Concurring, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN for a unanimous Court, concurring in part.

06-26-1986 Correspondence From Stevens To Marshall, John Paul Stevens

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Thurgood:

Please join me.

06-26-1986 Justice Marshall, Dissenting, Thurgood Marshall

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

On all too many occasions in recent years, I have felt compelled to express my dissatisfaction with this Court's readiness to dispose summarily of petitions for certiorari on the merits without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U. S. --, -- (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Cuyahoga Valley R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 474 U. S. --, - - (1985) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U. S. 111, 120-121 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). "[B]y deciding cases summarily, without benefit of oral …

06-25-1986 Justice White, Concurring, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring.

06-18-1986 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron:

I join your June 17 draft.

06-18-1986 Correspondence From White To Powell, Byron R. White

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis,

Please join me.

06-18-1986 Clerk Memo, Pamela S. Karlan

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

This is the case in which JUSTICE POWELL has drafted the per curiam on Batson retroactivity. The response has finally arrived.

06-17-1986 Justice White, Concurring And Dissenting, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE POWELL. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join. concurring in part and dissenting in part.

06-16-1986 Correspondence From Rehnquist To White, William H. Rehnquist

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron,

Please join me in your opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part .

06-16-1986 Correspondence From O'Connor To White, Sandra Day O'Connor

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron,

Please join me in your opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

06-16-1986 Correspondence From Burger To Powell, Warren E. Burger

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis:

I join.

06-12-1986 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Powell, William H. Rehnquist

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis:

Please join me in your Per Curiam.

06-12-1986 Correspondence From Marshall To Powell, Thurgood Marshall

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis:

In due course, I shall circulate a dissent in this one.

06-11-1986 Correspondence From Brennan To Powell, William J. Brennan

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis,

I can go along with your proposed Per Curiam in the above.