Law Commons^™

Criminal Law And Procedure: A Two-Year Survey, James P. Fleissner

Mercer Law Review

During the two-year survey period, the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court issued well over a thousand published opinions addressing issues of criminal law and procedure.' The primary purpose of this Article is to summarize judicial decisions constituting noteworthy developments in the law. Given the scope of survey, the constraint of limited space imposed difficult choices concerning what to include. As in past years, this survey will focus on highlights, such as cases of first impression and cases presenting close or controversial issues. The Author hopes this Article will provide useful information for busy practitioners seeking to …

Black Man, White Justice: The Extradition Of Matthew Bullock, An African-American Residing In Ontario, 1922, John C. Weaver

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Canadian extradition law uncomfortably combines common law precepts with compromises deemed necessary for carrying out treaty obligations. In this context, for example, the substitution of affidavits for parol evidence has been an area where international courtesy has clashed with a valued means of testing an allegation, namely the cross-examination of witnesses. To reject an application for extradition because only documentary evidence is provided can amount to a censure of judicial proceedings in the state making the request; rejection may suggest that a fair trial cannot be secured. In 1922, in a sensational but hitherto uncited case, an Ontario extradition judge …

Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Bargaining About Future Jeopardy, Daniel C. Richman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The debate about how much protection criminal defendants should have against successive prosecutions has generally been conducted in the context of how to interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause. The doctrinal focus of this debate ignores the fact that for the huge majority of defendants-those who plead guilty instead of standing trial-the Double Jeopardy Clause sin- ply sets a default rule, establishing a minimum level of protection when defendants choose not to bargain about the possibility of future charges. In this Article, Professor Richman examines the world that exists in the shadow of minimalist double jeopardy doctrine, exploring the dynamics of …

From The Desk Of Law Faculty, Delhi University, Maurya Vijay Chandra

Maurya Vijay Chandra

The recent rulinq of the Supreme Court on the bail release of under-trial prisoners is momentous. Its importance lies in the fact, that the judgement confers on an under-trial prisoner booked for certain category of offences a right to be released on bail if he has undergone a certain period of pre-trial detention. Another highlight of the judgement apart from this is that it enjoins upon the trial court to take suo moto cognizance of the pending of trial and under-trial detention. And the order would apply to all future cases. Further, the jUdgement itself provides for its circulation in …

Felker V. Turpin 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Bennett V. Angelone 92 F.3d 1336 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

O'Dell V. Netherland 95 F.3d 1214 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Discovery And Psychological Defenses In West Virginia: Squeezing A Lemon Or Kicking A Dog, J. Robert Russell

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should "Clean Hands" Protect The Government Against § 2515 Suppression Under Title Iii Of The Omnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act Of 1968?, Francis Marion Hamilton, Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Loving V. United States 116 S. Ct 1737 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Cooper V. Oklahoma 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Lonchar V. Thomas 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Barnabei V. Commonwealth 1996 Wl 517733 (Va. 1996) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Goins V. Commonwealth 251 Va. 442, 470 S.E.2d 114 (1996) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Incredible Shrinking Writ: Habeas Corpus Under The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, Jeanne-Marie S. Raymond

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Alice In Wonderland Interpretations: Rethinking The Use Of Mental Mitigation Experts, Douglas S. Collica

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Tihar Project: Some Early Reflection (August), Maurya Vijay Chandra

Maurya Vijay Chandra

They sat on the lawns and we started talking to them one by one. All of a sudden I saw everybody around us rising. For a split second I was puzzled ! Then I realized that the famous song "Aai Malik Tere Bande Hum" from "00 Ankhen Barah Hath" was being played on the public address system. "It is their evening prayer!" I realized. And I was impressed ! not by their discipline but by their devotion.

Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave

Michigan Law Review

At least the title indicates that the article is somehow concerned with "the Fourth Amendment," though for anyone who knows me or is at all familiar with my work, that piece of information hardly would come as a revelation. The fact of the matter is that I almost always write about the Fourth Amendment; I am in an academic rut so deep as to deserve recognition in the Guinness Book World of Records. Search and seizure has been my cheval de bataille during my entire time as a law professor and even when I was a mere law student. …

Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker

Michigan Law Review

For the purposes of my argument, I adapt Professor Meir Dan-Cohen's distinction (which he in turn borrowed from Jeremy Bentham) between "conduct" rules and "decision" rules. Bentham and Dan-Cohen make this distinction in the context of substantive criminal law; for their purposes, "conduct" rules are addressed to the general public in order to guide its behavior (for example, "Let no person steal") and "decision" rules are addressed to public officials in order to guide their decisionmaking about the consequences of violating conduct rules (for example, "Let the judge cause whoever is convicted of stealing to be hanged"). But as any …

A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

Supreme Court decisions have vacillated between two incompatible readings of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Court sometimes sees this language as affording defendants and suspects a right to remain silent. This interpretation - a view that countless repetitions of the Miranda warnings have impressed upon the public - asserts that government officials have no legitimate claim to testimonial evidence tending to incriminate the person who possesses it. Although officials need not encourage a suspect to remain silent, they must remain at least neutral toward …

"As The Gentle Rain From Heaven": Mercy In Capital Sentencing, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Our constitutional law of capital sentencing does not understand Shakespeare's "gentle rain from heaven." Mercy confuses and befuddles it. The jury that sentenced Albert Brown to death was instructed that "'mere ... sympathy"' should not play on its judgment. Brown claimed this instruction violated his Eighth Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Some five years later, Justice Scalia dissented when the Court reversed Derrick Morgan's death sentence. According to Justice Scalia, the Court had held that no "merciless" juror could sit in judgment of a capital defendant. The Constitution, he thought, demanded no such thing. These dissents, one embracing …

Criminal Protection Orders In Domestic Violence Cases: Getting Rid Of Rats With Snakes, Christopher R. Frank

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Evans: Carving Out Another Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Sara Gilbert

Mercer Law Review

In Arizona v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence seized incident to an arrest, when the arrest resulted from inaccurate computer data created by court personnel. In January 1991, police arrested Isaac Evans during a routine traffic stop because the patrol car's computer indicated he was the subject of an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. While being handcuffed, Evans dropped a marijuana cigarette. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a bag of marijuana hidden under the passenger seat, and Evans was charged with possession. Upon notifying the justice court of the …

Probation Officers Look At Plea Bargaining, And Do Not Like What They See, David Yellen

Articles

The Probation Officers Advisory Group's survey provides valuable insights into plea bargaining practices under the federal guidelines. Probation officers play a crucial role in guideline sentencing, and their views on the plea bargaining process are significant both because of their proximity to that process and the influence they wield with judges. The survey responses thus deserve attention and may spark lively debate within the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere. Depending on one's perspective, the picture that emerges is of plea bargaining either as a safety valve to mitigate the harshness and rigidity of the guidelines, or an unregulated process that threatens …

Constitutional Criminal Procedure, James P. Fleissner

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys significant 1995 decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the field commonly referred to as "Constitutional Criminal Procedure." The primary focus of this branch of criminal procedure is on the interpretation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. In selecting notable cases from 1995, the author looked for important interpretations of legal tests, rulings in cases of first impression, and opinions on close or controversial questions. I have endeavored to provide criminal practitioners with a useful "briefing" on recent significant developments in the Eleventh Circuit. Furthermore, I hope …

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Andrea Wilson

Mercer Law Review

Whether the sentencing guidelines have finally become familiar enough for consistent application or because there were so few amendments last year,' there seem to be fewer dramatic and controversial Eleventh Circuit decisions regarding sentencing this year than in years past. The court took the opportunity to focus more closely on the process of sentencing itself rather than on the precise application of the guidelines.

The Court wrote extensively about the district courts' frequent failure to create a fully articulated record on which appellate review can be had. Expanding on its earlier requirement that district courts elicit and respond to objections …

Resistance To Equality, Elizabeth M. Schneider

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Good Faith, Big Brother, And You: The United States Supreme Court's Latest Good Faith Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule. Arizona V. Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185 (1995)., Elisa Masterson White

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.