Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Death Penalty Law, Therese M. Day
Death Penalty Law, Therese M. Day
Mercer Law Review
This Article provides a survey of death penalty case law in Georgia from June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. The cases include those that were heard by the Georgia Supreme Court on interim appeal and direct appeal,1 and discussion is limited to claims which present new issues of law, refine existing law, or are otherwise instructive. This Article does not discuss holdings in capital cases that are common to all criminal appeals because these are discussed elsewhere in this Survey.
Georgia V. Randolph: What To Do With A Yes From One But Not From Two?, Nathan A. Wood
Georgia V. Randolph: What To Do With A Yes From One But Not From Two?, Nathan A. Wood
Mercer Law Review
In Georgia v. Randolph, the United States Supreme Court held that when an officer asks two physically present occupants of the same shared residence for permission to search, that search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when one occupant denies permission to search, though the other consents. In so holding, the Court created a new standard in which "widely held social expectations" dictate whether it is reasonable to assume an occupant has the authority to consent to a search.
Kansas V. Marsh: A Thumb On The Scale Of Death?, Elizabeth Brandenburg
Kansas V. Marsh: A Thumb On The Scale Of Death?, Elizabeth Brandenburg
Mercer Law Review
In Kansas v. Marsh, the United States Supreme Court held that it is not unconstitutional for a state's death penalty statute to require a death sentence when a sentencing jury finds aggravating and mitigating factors to be in equipoise. Extending its previous decision in Walton v. Arizona, the Court explicitly determined that this type of sentencing met the requirements of Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, holding that no other constraint is imposed by the Constitution. While the repercussions of this decision may not be widely felt, they do indicate the direction the Court is heading …
Definitely Not Harmless: The Supreme Court Holds That The Erroneous Disqualification Of Retained Counsel Warrants Automatic Reversal In United States V. Gonzalez-Lopez, James A. Robson
Mercer Law Review
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, the United States Supreme Court held that the erroneous disqualification of a criminal defendant's retained choice of counsel violates the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must result in the automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the Government's argument that a defendant who is denied his choice of counsel must prove prejudice by showing the defendant's substitute counsel was ineffective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington. Instead, the Court concluded that because a complete violation of the Sixth Amendment's Counsel Clause occurs when …
Hey Officer, Didn't Someone Teach You To Knock? The Supreme Court Says No Exclusion Of Evidence For Knock-And- Announce Violations In Hudson V. Michigan, David Carn
Mercer Law Review
In Hudson v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that evidence discovered by police after a knock-and-announce violation will not necessarily be excluded in court. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, stated that exclusion is only appropriate where the interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are implicated and that hiding evidence from the government is not one of those interests. The Court further held that the substantial social costs of excluding evidence discovered upon knock-and-announce violations outweigh the deterrent effects of the exclusionary rule against police misconduct and, therefore, the application of the …