Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- 3.220 (1)
- Agurs (1)
- Bad faith (1)
- Bostic (1)
-
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- Cameras in the courtroom (1)
- Clark (1)
- Contemporaneous objection (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Dissent (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Downum (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Florida (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Good faith (1)
- Gori (1)
- Illinois v. Summerville (1)
- Improper comment regarding defendant's silence (1)
- Jorn (1)
- Judicial proceedings (1)
- Manifest necessity (1)
- Materiality (1)
- Mistrial (1)
- Perez (1)
- Public access (1)
- Right to remain silent (1)
- Simmons (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gannett Co. V. Depasquale, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979), Margot Pequignot
Gannett Co. V. Depasquale, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979), Margot Pequignot
Florida State University Law Review
Criminal Procedure-FAIR TRIAL-CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO A PRETRIAL PROCEEDING WHEN ALL PARTICIPANTS AGREE IT SHOULD BE CLOSED TO PROTECT DEFENDANT'S FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS
State V. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1978), Michael T. Webster
State V. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1978), Michael T. Webster
Florida State University Law Review
Constitutional Law-DUE PROCESS NOT VIOLATED BY STATE'S DESTRUCTION AND NONDISCLOSURE OF TAPE RECORDING IN CRIMINAL LAW
Arizona V. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)
Arizona V. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)
Florida State University Law Review
Criminal Law-MISTRIAL DECLARATION-OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION, PROSECUTION MUST DEMONSTRATE HIGH DEGREE OF MANIFEST NECESSITY OR REPROSECUTION WILL BE BARRED
Clark V. State, 363 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1978), Shawn Ettingoff
Clark V. State, 363 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1978), Shawn Ettingoff
Florida State University Law Review
Criminal Law-RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT-OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR MISTRIAL NOW REQUIRED TO PRESERVE IMPROPER COMMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S SILENCE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW