Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (12)
- University of Richmond (5)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- Pepperdine University (2)
-
- University of Kentucky (2)
- University of Michigan Law School (2)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- University of Maine School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (12)
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (3)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (2)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
-
- Pepperdine Law Review (2)
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Maine Law Review (1)
- ProAcademy (1)
- St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Law Review Online (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 36 of 36
Full-Text Articles in Law
Jurisdiction Of The County Court
Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Procedure, William H. Fortune
Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Procedure, William H. Fortune
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
This Survey covers significant criminal procedure decisions of the Kentucky appellate courts for the period July 1, 1980, to July 1, 1982. It does not include cases construing the penal code or noteworthy decisions in the Kentucky law of evidence. The author has selected the most important criminal procedure cases for treatment in the text; a number of significant cases are summarized in footnotes.
Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson
Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
This article explores the ramifications of Wainwright v. Sykes, a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The broad question before the Court in Sykes concerned the extent to which state prisoners should have access to federal court by use of the writ of habeas corpus. The narrow issue before the Court concerned the impact on a prisoner's claim for habeas relief of procedural defaults (such as a failure to object to evidence, a failure to perfect an appeal, etc.) that occur in the state proceeding under attack. In considering these important issues Justice …
Federal Procedure-Appellate Practice-"Excusable Neglect" In Failing To Perfect Criminal Appeal Provides No Ground For Collateral Review Of Conviction, H. C. Snyder Jr.
Federal Procedure-Appellate Practice-"Excusable Neglect" In Failing To Perfect Criminal Appeal Provides No Ground For Collateral Review Of Conviction, H. C. Snyder Jr.
Michigan Law Review
After the ten-day period for filing a notice of appeal from a federal criminal conviction had expired, defendant filed a motion under section 2255 of the Judicial Code to set aside his sentence under a conviction for armed robbery. The motion was based on the improper admission of a confession given during an allegedly unlawful detention. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the error asserted did not amount to a denial of a constitutional right and that only constitutional defects are subject to attack after the time for an appeal has expired. The District of Columbia …
Constitutional Law - Post-Conviction Due Process - Right Of Indigent To Review Of Non-Constitutional Trial Errors, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Post-Conviction Due Process - Right Of Indigent To Review Of Non-Constitutional Trial Errors, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this comment is to examine a new development. in post-conviction due process: Griffin v. Illinois. This case announces a new principle of constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment based on an almost indistinguishable combination of due process and equal protection elements.