Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford
War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford
Northwestern University Law Review
In this essay, Ford considers provisions of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which place restrictions on the disposition of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay. These provisions raise substantial separation of powers issues regarding the ability of Congress to restrict detention operations of the Executive. These restrictions, and similar restrictions found in earlier NDAAs, specifically implicate the Executive's powers in foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Ford concludes that, with the exception of a similar provision found in the 2013 NDAA, the restrictions are constitutional.
More Than Just A Potted Plant: A Court's Authority To Review Deferred Prosecution Agreements Under The Speedy Trial Act And Under Its Inherent Supervisory Power, Mary Miller
Michigan Law Review
In the last decade, the Department of Justice has increasingly relied on pretrial diversion agreements as a means of resolving corporate criminal cases short of prosecution. These pretrial diversion agreements—non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements—include substantive terms that a company must abide by for the duration of the agreement in order to avoid prosecution. When entering a deferred prosecution agreement, the Department of Justice files charges against the defendant corporation as well as an agreement outlining the variety of terms with which the company must comply. This delay in prosecution is permitted under the Speedy Trial Act, which provides an exception …
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Two Books, Ten Days, Nancy Bellhouse May
Two Books, Ten Days, Nancy Bellhouse May
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing in order for her request for judicial intervention to constitute a "case" or "controversy" within the jurisdiction of a federal court; it also insists that the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing requires (1) that the litigant suffer an "injury in fact"; (2) that the person against whom the judicial intervention is sought have caused the injury; and (3) that the requested judicial intervention redress the injury. The requisite injury in fact, the Court repeatedly declares, must be "personal," "concrete and particularized," and "actual or …
Harris V. Commonwealth: The Use Of "Statutory" Aggravating Circumstances In Kentucky's Sentencing Procedure, Melissa Bartlett
Harris V. Commonwealth: The Use Of "Statutory" Aggravating Circumstances In Kentucky's Sentencing Procedure, Melissa Bartlett
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Judicial Vigilantism: Inherent Judicial Authority To Appoint Contempt Prosecutors In Young V. United States Ex Rel Vuitton Et Fils S.A., Neal Devins, Steven J. Mulroy
Judicial Vigilantism: Inherent Judicial Authority To Appoint Contempt Prosecutors In Young V. United States Ex Rel Vuitton Et Fils S.A., Neal Devins, Steven J. Mulroy
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Practice And Procedure - Reversal On Confession Of Error By Prosecutor
Practice And Procedure - Reversal On Confession Of Error By Prosecutor
Michigan Law Review
On appeal accused assigned as error the failure of the trial court to sustain his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. The prosecutor, convinced by facts dehors the record of the innocence of the accused, confessed error. Held, confession of error does not per se justify reversal; the court must find error in the record. Parlton v. United States, (App. D. C. 1935) 75 F. (2d) 772.