Law Commons^™

"Some Kind Of Hearing" In England, Charles H. Koch Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Di Francesco: Court Upholds State Initiated Sentence Appeals, Thomas Michael Hackel

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Di Francesco, the Supreme Court upheld a statute that allowed the government to seek, through an appeal, an increase of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court found that the statute did not violate the protections of the double jeopardy clause against multiple trials and multiple punishment. The question of state initiated appeals assumes further significance when it is considered that proposed revisions of the Federal Criminal Code include wider implementation of sentence appeals by the state.

Liability For Parole Decisionmaking: The Absence Of Discretion In The Parole Process, Robert F. Polglase

Mercer Law Review

In Payton v. United States, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the parole of a federal prisoner who, following release, murdered plaintiff's wife. The court concluded that such parole decisionmaking did not come within the discretionary function exemption of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

United States V. Williams: The Good Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Patricia Walker Bass

Mercer Law Review

In an opinion with two alternative holdings, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided en banc United States v. Williams on July 31, 1980. The court first held that, because Ms. Williams' arrest was legal, the incriminating evidence found as a result of the search incident to arrest could be used against her at trial. Alternatively, the court ruled that evidence should not be excluded when it is discovered by officers acting in good faith despite the fact that they are mistaken in thinking that their actions are lawful. This note focuses on the second holding that purports to establish …

Parallel Proceedings: The Impact Of Sec V. Dresser Industries, Inc.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discretion Of A Trial Judge In Trial To Exclude Otherwise Admissible Evidence, Clayton Hutchins

Dalhousie Law Journal

The divers, and diverse, opinions of the English judiciary over the last quarter of a century as to the existence and scope of the discretion of a trial judge in a criminal trial to exclude evidence had created a state of uncertainty in this area of evidentiary law. That uncertainty has been largely dispelled by the recent decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Sang. The facts are these. Sang was charged with conspiracy to utter counterfeit American banknotes. On his arraignment he pleaded not guilty to the charge. Then, in the absence of the jury, his counsel …

Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley

Michigan Law Review

In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, Donald Ayer levels a series of attacks on the Griffin decision. Specifically, he maintains that the decision is at once too broad, because it requires "almost automatic reversal where there are any remarks explicitly focused on the defendant's silence and the inference of guilt to be drawn from it" regardless of the strength of the prosecution's case, and too narrow, because it fails to prevent the natural prejudice against the nontestifying defendant that may arise in the minds of the jurors without any encouragement from prosecutor or judge. Ayer also …

Summer V. Mata: Twilight's Last Gleaming For Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Court Convictions - Speculations On The Future Of The Great Writ, Jason G. Reynolds

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Voir Dire - Prosecutors Must Now Show That A Juror Is Irrevocably Committed To Voting Against The Maximum Penalty Before Striking For Cause, Marcella Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reflections On Alfred Hill's "Testimonial Privilege And Fair Trial", Peter Westen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I have learned a great deal from "Testimonial Privilege and Fair Trial"-as I always do from Professor Hill's work. Indeed, he has changed my way of thinking in this area in several important respects. At the same time, I come to rather different conclusions than he regarding each of his three major topics. Part I of this article examines the problem of finding a "remedy" for testimonial privileges that violate a defendant's right to a fair trial. Part II discusses the problem of determining when a defendant is entitled to assert that the "right" has been violated. Finally, Part III …

Criminal Procedure - The Automatic Standing Rule In Possession Cases Is Overruled, Timothy D. Brewer

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vi. Criminal Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Obtained By Unlawful Police Conduct Shall Not Be Excluded If The Government Establishes The Conduct Resulted From A Reasonable, Good Faith Belief That It Was Proper., John W. Berry

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Confessions And The Court, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Police Interrogation and Confessions: Essays in Law and Policy by Yale Kamisar

The Use Of Expert Services By Privately Retained Criminal Defense Attorneys, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law–Arrest Without A Warrant–A Man's Home Is His Castle, Nancy Marian Epperson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law–Searches And Seizures–Individualized Probable Cause Is Necessary To Search Persons Incidentally On Premises Subject To A Warrant Authorized Search, Robert J. Fuller

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Rules, William H. Fortune

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

United States V. Payner New Limitations On The Courts Supervisory Power To Exclude Evidence, 14 J. Marshall L. Rev. 569 (1981), Michael A. Schoening

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Cops Are Robbers-Municipal Liability For Police Misconduct Under Section 1983 And Bivens, Brenda D. Crocker

University of Richmond Law Review

Municipalities faced with rising crime rates, tighter budgets and an increasingly vocal populace often are pressed to make policy decisions which sacrifice important interests. When fiscal considerations predominate, there arises the danger that local police departments will be unable to fulfill their duty to ensure order in society without disturbing citizens' enjoyment of their civil rights. Until recently, improperly trained, supervised or disciplined police of- ficers merely subjected municipalities to embarrassment. However, with increasing success, citizens are arguing that they should be awarded damages against the municipality in every case where their civil rights have been deprived through police misconduct. …

Rhode Island V. Innis: A Workable Definition Of "Interrogation"?, Deborah L. Fletcher

University of Richmond Law Review

In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the issue of what constitutes interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona. Innis is a significant decision in the criminal procedure area not only because of the workable standard for determining "interrogation" which it sets forth, but also because it signals the Burger Court's decision not to overrule Mirandaor to further disparage its effectiveness. However, Innis by no means represents a return to the Warren Court's solicitous approach to a suspect's Miranda rights. The Burger Court still has not raised Miranda's protections and strictures to the status of constitutionally …

The New Warrant Requirements: Payton V. New York And Wallace V. King, Robert B. Lloyd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Since the original Bill of Rights was drafted, the diverse warrant requirements necessary for reasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment have led to chaos and confusion. A dichotomy has existed between the requirements necessary for the search and seizure of property and those necessary for the search and seizure of persons. Generally, a warrant has been required when the object of the search and seizure was property while no warrant has been necessary for the seizure of an individual. The Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New York has erased much of this distinction, holding that the fourth …

Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams

University of Richmond Law Review

On December 31, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the landmark Privacy Act of 1974 into law. One of the key concepts of the Act is the principle of disclosure limitation, which limits the ability of the federal government to disclose the contents of per- sonal records in its possession. In the words of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, this principle "is designed to pre- vent.., the wrongful disclosure and use of personal files held by Federal agencies."

Criminal Procedure And Criminal Law: Virginia Supreme Court Decisions During The 70'S, Michael J. Barbour, Thomas E. Carr, Sarah H. Finley, Jeannie L. Pilant

University of Richmond Law Review

The purpose of this note is to examine the decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court during the period between 1970-1980 in the area of criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. Legislative changes will not be dealt with in depth except as they have affected these decisions. Because of space constraints, a complete review of all areas is impossible; therefore, review has been limited to those issues most likely to be of interest to the practicing attorney. The discussion will also attempt to establish the position of the Virginia Supreme Court on these matters in relation to the United States Supreme …

Public Access To Criminal Trials: Richmond Newspapers, Inc. V. Virginia, Christopher C. Spencer

University of Richmond Law Review

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia is, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "watershed case." For the first time, the Court recognized that some sort of first amendment right of access to government proceedings exists. The Court, in a plurality opinion (joined by two Justices, accompanied by five concurring opinions and one dissent), held that the right of the public to attend criminal trials is "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment."

A Case For Jury Determination Of Search And Seizure Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

University of Richmond Law Review

In a criminal case the option to return a general verdict of acquittal invests the jury with the raw power to nullify many legal determinations, including the trial judge's ruling that a search is constitutional. While courts grudingly acknowledge the existence of an extra-legal jury nullification power, courts do not recognize any jury prerogative to determine the lawfulness of a search. The United States Supreme Court's discussion of the jury's role in interpreting and applying the fourth amendment consists of one terse statement that the legality of a search "is a question of fact and law for the court and …

Criminal Proceedings - Plea Bargaining, Scott W. Reid

Duquesne Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that an unconsummated plea agreement cannot be enforced absent detrimental reliance.

Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980).

Criminal Procedure - Exclusionary Rule - Good Faith Exception - The Exclusionary Rule Will Not Operate In Circumstances Where The Officer's Violation Was Committed In The Reasonable, Good Faith Belief That His Actions Were Legal, David Kuritz

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.