Law Commons^™

Sexually Violent Predator Legislation And The Sexual Psychopath Act: Will New York "Police" Their Sexual Predators Via Civil Commitment?, Stephanie M. Adduci, M.A.

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Non Bis In Idem And The International Criminal Court, Reynaud Neil Daniels

ExpressO

Non bis in idem, or the double jeopardy principle, is a fundamental element of fairness in criminal procedure. At its core, it prohibits the state from repeatedly prosecuting, and punishing, individuals for the same offence. The Rome Statute contains the principle but affords little protection against harassment by contracting parties.

The Juridical Structure Of Habitual Offender Laws And The Jurisprudence Of Authoritarian Social Control, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

This article examines the most significant cases from the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia over the past year. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes to the law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 Session in the field of criminal law and procedure.

Double Jeopardy And The Death Penalty: A Fundamental Constitutional Protection With Life Or Death Consequences, Kristen Lindsay Todd

Campbell Law Review

What is the effect of a deadlocked jury in a sentencing hearing for the application of the death penalty on the termination of jeopardy? This comment will explore this issue as presented in Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, and analyze not only the arguments made in both the majority and dissenting opinions, but other considerations which arise when deciding if double jeopardy protections should apply. Also considered in the comment is the effect of the Sattazahn decision on future criminal defendants. What consequences will this decision have for the death row defendant when trying to decide whether to appeal his possibly erroneous …

Sattazahn V. Pennsylvania: Double Jeopardy And The Definition Of "Acquittal" In Capital-Sentencing Proceedings, Matthew G. Howells

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Sides Of A "Sargasso Sea": Successive Prosecution For The "Same Offence" In The United States And The United Kingdom, Lissa Griffin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article analyzes the U. S. constitutional law interpreting the concept of “same offence.” Included is a survey of the Supreme Court's attempts to interpret constitutional text in order to provide adequate protection for the underlying double jeopardy interest against vexatious reprosecutions, which have frequently produced inconsistent and illogical results. Part III of this article analyzes U.K. law relating to the concept of “same offence,” where the same narrow double jeopardy protection adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court is supplemented with a broad discretion to prevent unfair successive prosecution that constitutes an abuse of process. Part IV draws lessons from …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Once, Twice, Four Times A Felon: North Carolina's Unconstitutional Recidivist Statutes, Jason White

Campbell Law Review

This article will examine actions taken by the North Carolina legislature to address problems posed by recidivist criminal behavior. In particular, the constitutional standing of North Carolina's habitual misdemeanor assault and habitual impaired driving statutes will be evaluated. In order to provide an adequate discussion, the history and general principles of recidivism will be addressed. In addition, the impact of recidivist statutory trends upon constitutional guarantees of double jeopardy will be analyzed. Finally, the article will explain that North Carolina's habitual misdemeanor statutes are standing upon teetering constitutional ground.

Double Jeopardy And Punishment: Why An As Applied Approach, As Applied To Separation Of Powers Doctrines, Is Unconstitutional, Todd W. Wyatt

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment will argue that an as applied approach allows the executive branch, whether at the state or federal level, to encroach into the legislative realm by rendering a statute unconstitutional as a result of the way the statute is administered. Section II of this Comment will begin by examining the history of the as applied and on its face double jeopardy approaches during the last 20 years. After a close examination of the decisions in Halper and Hudson in sections II.B and II.C, this Comment will explain why the holding of Hudson, though correct in its result, was …

Florida's 1997 Chemical Castration Law: A Return To The Dark Ages, Larry Helm Spalding

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Welcome To Anytown, U.S.A. - Home Of Beautiful Scenery (And A Convicted Sex Offender): Sex Offender Registration And Notification Laws In E.B. V. Verniero, David S. Dematteo

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, Supreme Court, Appellate Term Second Judicial Department: People V. Steele

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Lovejoy: Hung Juries And Retrial Vs. Double Jeopardy And Collateral Estoppel, Nicole M. Ellis

Cleveland State Law Review

This article argues that the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Lovejoy helps to preserve the purpose of our criminal laws, which is to protect society. The article starts by recapping the events leading up to trial, then it breaks down the court decisions on appeal. The analysis of these decisions arrives at the conclusion that allowing a defendant to be retried on charges in which the accused was not previously acquitted, but rather the jury was hung or there was a mistrial, does not frustrate justice but instead greatly increases the opportunities for justice. In addition, the accused is …

Bargaining About Future Jeopardy, Daniel C. Richman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The debate about how much protection criminal defendants should have against successive prosecutions has generally been conducted in the context of how to interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause. The doctrinal focus of this debate ignores the fact that for the huge majority of defendants-those who plead guilty instead of standing trial-the Double Jeopardy Clause sin- ply sets a default rule, establishing a minimum level of protection when defendants choose not to bargain about the possibility of future charges. In this Article, Professor Richman examines the world that exists in the shadow of minimalist double jeopardy doctrine, exploring the dynamics of …

One Bite At The Apple: Reversals Of Convictions Tainted By Prosecutorial Misconduct And The Ban On Double Jeopardy, Rick A. Bierschbach

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after reversals of convictions tainted by prosecutorial misconduct in the submission of evidence when two conditions are met: (1) the prosecutor intentionally introduced tainted evidence, and (2) excluding the tainted evidence would have left insufficient evidence at trial to support the defendant's conviction. This Note contends that this limited extension of double jeopardy protection is both mandated by the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause and consistent with existing double jeopardy jurisprudence.

Tiptoeing Through The Tulips: The Supreme Court's Major, But Modest By Comparison, Criminal Law Rulings During The 1994-95 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge

Seattle University Law Review

The prohibition against double jeopardy is of ancient lineage in western civilization. In a ringing and scholarly dissent that rewards reflection, Justice Hugo Black said:

Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization. Its roots run deep into Greek and Roman times. Even in the Dark Ages, when so many other principles of justice were lost, the idea that one trial and one punishment were enough remained alive through the canon law and the teachings of the early Christian writers. By the thirteenth century …

Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will attempt to distill from this confusion a meaningful double jeopardy policy, applicable to parallel civil and criminal proceedings, that takes into account the history of double jeopardy, recent changes in statutory law, and the contemporary chaotic state of parallel civil and criminal proceedings. Under current law, double jeopardy protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. This Article will show that the multiple punishments prong has little basis in law, other than reliance …

The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin

Seattle University Law Review

Over the past decade, the government has escalated its "war on drugs." Although the "war" has not decreased drug use or limited the availability of drugs on the street, the government continues to sacrifice the constitutional rights of its citizens in an effort to escalate the hostility. Since the "zero tolerance" policy of the Reagan Administration, the government has relied heavily on the forfeiture of property related to drug crimes as a tool to deter and punish the illegal distribution of drugs. The federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881, allows the government to seize any property used to facilitate …

Administrative License Suspensions, Criminal Prosecution And The Double Jeopardy Clause, Carlos F. Ramirez

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note argues that revocation of a driver's license under ALS proceedings is not a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution by the state. It discusses the potential double jeopardy implications surrounding ALS that is followed by criminal proceedings, as well as the reasoning employed by a majority of the courts that hold that an ALS is remedial and, therefore, not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. It argues that with regard to determining whether an ALS is punitive, the appropriate test should balance the effect of the statute on the driver against the state's interest in protecting the …

Calmer Seas: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1993-94 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sotto Voce: The Supreme Court's Low Key But Not Insignificant Criminal Law Rulings During The 1992 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Quiet Year: The Supreme Court's Criminal Law Decisions During The 1991 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rico, Merger, And Double Jeopardy, Earle A. Partington

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will examine RICO as it has been interpreted by the United States Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States in an effort to determine the effects that merger and double jeopardy have had in the past, and should have in the future, upon RICO prosecutions. Because the doc- trines of merger and double jeopardy are criminal law principles, only the criminal aspects of RICO will be examined. Initially, this Article will explore the purpose and history of RICO and examine the doctrines of merger and double jeopardy and their application to RICO indictments and …

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy - When Does Jeopardy Attach In A Non-Jury Trial In North Carolina? - State V. Brunson, John M. Nunnally

Campbell Law Review

Under Brunson, clear guidelines now exist for all parties involved in criminal trials regarding exactly when jeopardy attaches in a nonjury trial in North Carolina. This Note will analyze the court's decision. First, this Note will present the facts that were before the Brunson court. Second, this Note will discuss the history of double jeopardy and the conflicting views of when it attaches in a bench trial. Third, this Note will analyze the Brunson decision and its effect on criminal procedure in North Carolina. Finally, this Note concludes that although the time period adopted by the court is correct, …

Lockhart V. Nelson: Trial Error, Evidentiary Insufficiency, And Double Jeopardy, Scott E. Schul

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.