Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Act intent test (1)
- Alcohol (1)
- Buller test (1)
- Charges (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
-
- Convictions (1)
- Court instructions (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Funk v. United States (1)
- Guilty (1)
- Intent (1)
- Juries (1)
- National Prohibition Act (1)
- Pending prosecutions (1)
- Prohibition law (1)
- Requests (1)
- Reversible errors (1)
- Rex v. Vandercomb (1)
- Roberts v. State (1)
- Scene of the crime (1)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts (1)
- State v. Keller (1)
- Substantial harm (1)
- Twenty First Amendment (1)
- Unanimous (1)
- Unfair (1)
- United States v. Chambers and Gibson (1)
- Witnesses (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Criminal Law And Procedure - Right Of Defendant To Accompany Jury On View-Due Process
Criminal Law And Procedure - Right Of Defendant To Accompany Jury On View-Due Process
Michigan Law Review
During the trial of appellant in the Massachusetts courts for murder the jury was sent to view the scene of the crime. The accused asked that he be allowed to accompany them, invoking the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Permission was refused. At the view, judge and counsel being present, a stipulation was entered into as to changes which had occurred since the crime. Upon conviction, appellant appealed to the United States Supreme Court asserting that there had been a denial of due process. Held, four justices dissenting, that there had been no denial of due process since no …
Evidence - Federal Practice - Competency Of Wife To Testify In Defense Of Husband In Criminal Case
Evidence - Federal Practice - Competency Of Wife To Testify In Defense Of Husband In Criminal Case
Michigan Law Review
The defendant, being tried in a federal district court on an indictment for conspiracy to violate the prohibition law, offered his wife as a witness in his behalf. The district court, following what it concluded to be the established rule of the federal courts, refused to allow her to testify. The circuit court of appeals affirmed this ruling without discussing the point. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, limited to the question as to what law was applicable in determining the competency of the wife. Held, that the federal courts have the power to determine for themselves the …
Criminal Law And Procedure - Instruction As To The Reasonable Doubt Of Each Juror
Criminal Law And Procedure - Instruction As To The Reasonable Doubt Of Each Juror
Michigan Law Review
The accused in a criminal prosecution requested, in addition to a general charge on reasonable doubt, an instruction stating, "The court instructs the jury that if after the consideration of the whole case, any juror entertains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt it is the duty of such juror so entertaining such doubt, not to vote for a verdict of guilty, or be influenced in so voting for the single reason that a majority of the jury might be in favor of a verdict of guilty:" This instruction was refused and the defendant appealed from his conviction. Held, …
Criminal Law And Procedure - Repeal Of Statute - Eighteenth Amendment
Criminal Law And Procedure - Repeal Of Statute - Eighteenth Amendment
Michigan Law Review
Defendants Chambers and Gibson were indicted on June 5, 1933, for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act, and for possessing and transporting liquor in violation of the Act. Chambers pleaded guilty, and the case was continued to the December term. The case was called for trial as to Gibson on December 6, 1933. Chambers filed a plea in abatement, and Gibson demurred to the indictment. Held, the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, by the adoption of the Twenty-first, proclaimed December 5, 1933, barred further prosecution. United States v. Chambers and Gibson, (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1934) 1 U.S. …
Criminal Law And Procedure-Former Jeopardy-Tests Of "Same Offence
Criminal Law And Procedure-Former Jeopardy-Tests Of "Same Offence
Michigan Law Review
The provision in the state and federal constitutions that one may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense is merely declaratory of the common law, and is in effect in all jurisdictions. However, there is often great difficulty in determining when offenses are the same. Several tests to determine the identity of offenses have been employed.