Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- California Supreme Court (4)
- Bill of Rights for Children (1)
- Briggs (1)
- Briggs v. Brown (1)
- Brown v. Plata (1)
-
- California Constitution (1)
- Children (1)
- Children's rights (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- DNA (1)
- DNA Act (1)
- DNA Evidence (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Due process (1)
- Firearms (1)
- Forensic (1)
- Franklin mitigation hearings (1)
- Gault (1)
- Grand juries (1)
- Grand jury (1)
- Gun (1)
- Gun violence (1)
- In re Cook (1)
- In re Gault (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury (1)
- Juvenile (1)
- Juvenile detention (1)
- Juvenile justice (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn
The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supervised Release Is Not Parole, Jacob Schuman
Supervised Release Is Not Parole, Jacob Schuman
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The United States has the largest prison population in the developed world. Yet outside prisons, there are almost twice as many people serving terms of criminal supervision in the community— probation, parole, and supervised release. At the federal level, this “mass supervision” of convicted offenders began with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which abolished parole and created a harsher and more expansive system called supervised release. Last term in United States v. Haymond, the Supreme Court took a small step against mass supervision by striking down one provision of the supervised release statute as violating the right to …
Young V. Hawaii: A Dangerous Precedent, Michael Jimenez
Young V. Hawaii: A Dangerous Precedent, Michael Jimenez
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Evolution Of Juvenile Justice From The Book Of Leviticus To Parens Patriae: The Next Step After In Re Gault, Donald E. Mcinnis, Shannon Cullen, Julia Schon
The Evolution Of Juvenile Justice From The Book Of Leviticus To Parens Patriae: The Next Step After In Re Gault, Donald E. Mcinnis, Shannon Cullen, Julia Schon
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Since the arrival of the Pilgrims, American jurisprudence has known that its law-breaking children must be treated differently than adults. How children are treated by the law raises ethical and constitutional issues. This Article questions the current approach, which applies adult due process protections to children who are unable to fully understand their constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving those rights. The authors propose new Miranda warnings and a Bill of Rights for Children to protect children and their constitutional right to due process under the law.
Overdue Justice: People V. Valenzuela And The Path Toward Gang Prosecution Reform, Ryan Nelson
Overdue Justice: People V. Valenzuela And The Path Toward Gang Prosecution Reform, Ryan Nelson
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Re Cook And The Franklin Proceeding: New Door, Same Dilapidated House, Christopher Hawthorne, Marisa Sacks
In Re Cook And The Franklin Proceeding: New Door, Same Dilapidated House, Christopher Hawthorne, Marisa Sacks
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Cook was supposed to bring about a sea change in the way trial courts conduct Franklin mitigation hearings for youthful offenders. In fact, while Cook changed the procedure for initiating a post-conviction Franklin proceeding, little else has changed, including the lack of agreement among attorneys concerning best practices in these proceedings, and a less than less-than-enthusiastic response from the criminal defense bar. Absent any guidance from higher courts, the Franklin proceeding is limited by the personal and institutional energies and preferences of judges, prosecutors, public defenders and private defense counsel. The authors …
Making Constitutional Sense: A Modal Approach To California's Proposition 66, Alan Romero
Making Constitutional Sense: A Modal Approach To California's Proposition 66, Alan Romero
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
For years, the California Supreme Court has adopted a deferential posture when reviewing state constitutional challenges to a ballot initiative. The decision in Briggs v. Brown underscored the degree to which courts are willing to avoid striking down ballot initiatives on constitutional grounds, such as by broadly construing the initiative’s language to avoid constitutional problems. In construing the language of Proposition 66 to avoid separation of powers problems, however, Briggs effectively re-interpreted central pillars of Proposition 66 in ways rendering it unrecognizable to Californians who cast votes for and against the initiative. Such recasting of ballot initiatives raises fundamental jurisprudential …