Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Law

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Court Of Appeals Jul 2019

Due Process Court Of Appeals

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court Queens County Jul 2019

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Emperor’S New Clothes: An Intersection Of Presidential Immunity And Criminal Accountability, Nicholas J. Maggio Jan 2019

The Emperor’S New Clothes: An Intersection Of Presidential Immunity And Criminal Accountability, Nicholas J. Maggio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson Jan 2019

Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


How To Get Away With Murder: The “Gay Panic” Defense, Omar T. Russo Jan 2019

How To Get Away With Murder: The “Gay Panic” Defense, Omar T. Russo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Disciplinary Regulation Of Prosecutorial Discretion: What Would A Rule Look Like?, Samuel J. Levine Jan 2019

Disciplinary Regulation Of Prosecutorial Discretion: What Would A Rule Look Like?, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Essay is the third part of a larger project examining the potential role of professional discipline in the regulation and supervision of prosecutors’ charging decisions. The first two parts of the project argued that courts have both the authority and the ability to exercise effective disciplinary review of charging decisions through the adoption of ethics rules and their enforcement in the disciplinary process. This Essay takes the next step in the project, considering the nature of rules that courts might adopt, by exploring potential rules targeting two improprieties: arbitrary and capricious charging decisions, and discriminatory charging decisions.