Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Disclosure (2)
- Acquit against the evidence (1)
- Affirmative Defense (1)
- Aggravating and mitigating factors (1)
- Appeals (1)
-
- Audited (1)
- Autrefois acquit (1)
- Autrefois convict (1)
- Board of directors (1)
- CEO (1)
- Collective Action Doctrine (1)
- Common law (1)
- Compliance Programs (1)
- Confidence in the legal system (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Corporate Criminal Liability (1)
- Corporate Criminality (1)
- Corporate management (1)
- Corporation (1)
- Court ordered (1)
- Criminal Justice Act (1)
- DOJ (1)
- DPA's (1)
- Deferred Prosecution Agreements (1)
- Department of Justice (1)
- Detection (1)
- Dodd-Frank (1)
- Double Jeopardy Clause (1)
- Efficient investigation (1)
- Efficient prosecution (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
No Secrets Allowed: A Prosecutor’S Obligation To Disclose Inadmissible Evidence, Abigail B. Scott
No Secrets Allowed: A Prosecutor’S Obligation To Disclose Inadmissible Evidence, Abigail B. Scott
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Graham On The Ground, Cara H. Drinan
Graham On The Ground, Cara H. Drinan
Scholarly Articles
In Graham v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to sentence a non-homicide juvenile offender to life in prison without parole. While states need not guarantee release to these juvenile offenders, they cannot foreclose such an outcome at the sentencing phase. Scholars have identified several long-term ramifications of Graham, including its likely influence on juvenile sentencing practices and on retributive justice theory. As yet unexamined, though, are the important and thorny legal questions that Graham raises for state judges and lawmakers in the very short term. To whom does the Graham decision apply? What is the …
Clemency In A Time Of Crisis, Cara H. Drinan
Clemency In A Time Of Crisis, Cara H. Drinan
Scholarly Articles
At the state level, the power to pardon or commute a criminal sentence — that is, to grant clemency — is vested in either the Governor, an executive clemency board, or some combination thereof. Until very recently, clemency grants were a consistent feature of our criminal justice system. In the last four decades, though, state clemency grants have declined significantly; in some states, clemency seems to have disappeared altogether. In this Article, I contend that executive clemency should be revived at the state level in response to ongoing systemic criminal justice failings. Part I of this Article describes clemency at …
Lafler And Frye: Good News For Public Defense Litigation, Cara H. Drinan
Lafler And Frye: Good News For Public Defense Litigation, Cara H. Drinan
Scholarly Articles
In Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the plea negotiation process and held that prejudicial error can flow from ineffective plea advice. The defense community has applauded these decisions for recognizing the pivotal role that guilty pleas play in our criminal justice system and for requiring a minimum level of efficacy in plea lawyering. In this brief essay, I suggest that Frye and Lafler are victories for the defense community in yet another way. The decisions reflect judicial realism, and in this respect, they are especially …
Electronic Privacy In The Government Workplace And The City Of Ontario, California V. Quon: The Supreme Court Brought Forth A Mouse, Clifford S. Fishman
Electronic Privacy In The Government Workplace And The City Of Ontario, California V. Quon: The Supreme Court Brought Forth A Mouse, Clifford S. Fishman
Scholarly Articles
This Article begins with a very brief overview of fundamental Fourth Amendment principles and federal statutory regulation of electronic surveillance of communications. Part II consists of a detailed look at O'Connor v. Ortega, and the uncertainties the decision created in the law. Part III examines City of Ontario v. Quon, and analyzes what the Court did decide. Part IV examines the issues in Quon that the Court did not decide. Part V states my conclusions as to where the decision leaves the law. The Article ends with an "user's guide" to Quon, which outlines how litigants and judges should …
The Missed Opportunity Of United States V. Jones: Commercial Erosion Of Fourth Amendment Protection In A Post Google Earth World, Mary Graw Leary
The Missed Opportunity Of United States V. Jones: Commercial Erosion Of Fourth Amendment Protection In A Post Google Earth World, Mary Graw Leary
Scholarly Articles
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. These protections, therefore, are only triggered when the government engages is a “search” or “seizure.” For decades, the Court defined “search” as a government examination of an area where one has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Such an expectation requires both that the individual demonstrate a subjective expectation of privacy and that the expectation is one society finds reasonable. In 1974, Anthony Amsterdam prophesized the unworkability of this test, warning of a day that the government would circumvent it my merely announcing 24 hour surveillance. Similarly, the …
Whistleblowers And Rogues: An Urgent Call For An Affirmative Defense To Corporate Criminal Liability, Marcia Narine
Whistleblowers And Rogues: An Urgent Call For An Affirmative Defense To Corporate Criminal Liability, Marcia Narine
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein
Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.