Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Annual Survey of Virginia Law (1)
- Barrett v. Commonwealth (1)
- Blockburger v. United States (1)
- Boyd v. United States (1)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth (1)
-
- Brown v. Commonwealth (1)
- Brown v. Texas (1)
- Burlile v. Commonwealth (1)
- Burns v. Commonwealth (1)
- Cairns v. Commonwealth (1)
- Cartwright v. Commonwealth (1)
- Colaw v. Commonwealth (1)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth (1)
- Commonwealth of Chatman (1)
- Commonwealth v. Evans (1)
- Commonwealth v. Hill (1)
- Commonwealth v. Norton (1)
- Cybercrime (1)
- Duong v. Commonwealth (1)
- Faretta v. California (1)
- Fishback v. Commonwealth (1)
- Florida v. Bostick (1)
- Florida v. Jimeno (1)
- Florida v. Royer (1)
- Hamlin v. Commonwealth (1)
- Heath v. Commonwealth (1)
- Henry v. Commonwealth (1)
- Herbin v. Commonwealth (1)
- Illinois v. Wardlow (1)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
State Cybercrime Legislation In The United States Of America: A Survey, Susan W. Brenner
State Cybercrime Legislation In The United States Of America: A Survey, Susan W. Brenner
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
In the United States, cybercrimes are the focus of legislation adopted at both the state and federal levels. The U.S. Constitution allocates lawmaking authority between the two levels according to certain principles, one of which is that even when federal jurisdiction to legislate exists, federal legislation is appropriate only when federal intervention is required. And while federal legislative authority can pre-empt the states' ability to legislate in a given area, it rarely does, so it is not unusual for federal criminal laws to overlap with state prohibitions that address essentially the same issues.
Public Executions In America Should Death Row Inmates Be Able To Choose Between Private And Public Death, Nicholas Compton
Public Executions In America Should Death Row Inmates Be Able To Choose Between Private And Public Death, Nicholas Compton
Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest
On June 13, 1997, Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19,1995. The bombing resulted in the deaths of 168 people and the wounding of over 500 more. McVeigh successfully petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch to put an end to his appeals and expedite his execution. At midnight on February 16, 2001 McVeigh let pass his deadline to petition President George W. Bush for clemency. He is scheduled to die by lethal injection on May 16, 2001 at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, …
Public Executions In America Should Death Row Inmates Be Able To Choose Between Private And Public Death, Nicholas Compton
Public Executions In America Should Death Row Inmates Be Able To Choose Between Private And Public Death, Nicholas Compton
Richmond Public Interest Law Review
On June 13, 1997, Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19,1995. The bombing resulted in the deaths of 168 people and the wounding of over 500 more. McVeigh successfully petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch to put an end to his appeals and expedite his execution. At midnight on February 16, 2001 McVeigh let pass his deadline to petition President George W. Bush for clemency. He is scheduled to die by lethal injection on May 16, 2001 at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, …
Usual Suspects Beware: "Walk, Don't Run" Through Dangerous Neighborhoods, Margaret Anne Hoehl
Usual Suspects Beware: "Walk, Don't Run" Through Dangerous Neighborhoods, Margaret Anne Hoehl
University of Richmond Law Review
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is "designed 'to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals." The Amendment is currently interpreted as consisting of two separate clauses, the first generally prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and the second requiring the establishment of probable cause prior to the issuance of a warrant. Hence, only those government searches and seizures requiring a warrant necessitate the establishment of probable cause, and all other searches and seizures simply need to be "reasonable."
University Of Richmond Law Review
University Of Richmond Law Review
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, William J. Dinkin, Cullen D. Seltzer
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, William J. Dinkin, Cullen D. Seltzer
University of Richmond Law Review
Because a large amount of the docket for the Court of Appeals of Virginia is comprised of criminal cases, and since the General Assembly regularly turns its attention to the questions of crime and punishment, in almost any year there are a great number of substantial developments in the criminal law. This past year was no exception. This article surveys developments in criminal law and procedure in Virginia from July 2000 to July 2001. Although this article is intended to survey significant developments over the past year, the reader is cautioned to bear in mind several important caveats.