Law Commons^™

Due Process Junior: Competent (Enough) For The Court, Tigan Woolson

Journal of Law and Health

There are many reports presenting expert policy recommendations, and a substantial volume of research supporting them, that detail what should shape and guide statutes for juvenile competency to stand trial. Ohio has adopted provisions consistent with some of these recommendations, which is better protection than relying on case law and the adult statutes, as some states have done. However, the Ohio statute should be considered a work in progress.

Since appeals courts are unlikely to provide meaningful review for the substance of a juvenile competency determination, the need for procedures for ensuring that the determination is initially made in a …

The Marriage Of State Law And Individual Rights And A New Limit On The Federal Death Penalty, Jonathan Ross

Cleveland State Law Review

Since the 1990s, federal prosecutors have, with increasing frequency, sought the death penalty for federal offenses committed in and also punishable under the laws of non-death penalty states. Critics of this practice have pointed out that federal prosecutors can use the federal death penalty to circumvent a state's abolition of capital punishment. Courts, however, have almost unanimously rejected arguments that state law should be a shield from federal punishment for federal offenses. This article proposes a novel way to challenge the federal death penalty's use in a non-death penalty state—the Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Windsor. In Windsor, …

Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.

Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court in Leon v. United States held that where law enforcement officials execute a search warrant issued in violation of the dictates of the fourth amendment but act in the "good faith," "objectively-reasonable" belief that the warrant was constitutionally valid, the fruits of the search should not (with a few exceptions) be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. On June 8, 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court, after calling for and receiving briefs and arguments on the same issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified, concluded, for reasons of …

The Right To Counsel And Due Process In Probation Revocation Proceedings: Gagnon V. Scarpelli, Douglas C. Jenkins

Cleveland State Law Review

On May 14, 1973, the worst fear of at least one commentator was borne out by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Gagnon v. Scarpelli. Justice Powell, writing for the Court, recognized certain due process rights of the individual who has been convicted and placed on probation. The Court refused to adopt a per se right to representation by counsel as an element of due process in probation revocation proceedings, however. The opinion has left the meaning and importance of due process in grave doubt, has retarded the progression of penal-correctional reform, and has insured a heavy docket for …

Prisoner's Clothing During Trial, Christine Mukai

Cleveland State Law Review

This paper will deal with the appearance, vis-a-vis clothing, of a criminal defendant and the right of that defendant not to be attired in prison garb during judicial proceedings. The purpose here is not to consider the practices of the various jurisdictions; rather this shall be an attempt to display the existence and implications of the right to stand trial in non-criminating clothing.

Right To Counsel In Criminal Cases, Edward T. Haggins

Cleveland State Law Review

"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law... He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step of the proceedings against him." These words, written in 1932 by Mr. Justice Sutherland for the majority in the famous case of Powell v. Alabama underline the fundamental right of a defendant in American criminal proceeding to have the assistance of counsel.