Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Rights Of State Prisoners - Federal Court Intervention In State Prison Administration; Jones V. Wittenberg, Ronald L. Collins
Rights Of State Prisoners - Federal Court Intervention In State Prison Administration; Jones V. Wittenberg, Ronald L. Collins
Akron Law Review
The path to federal court intervention into state prison administration has been a tortuous and rocky one.... Jones v. Wittenberg carries federal court intervention into state prison administration to new lengths. Until more basic and lasting changes are made on the part of society and the states, such intervention seems to be the best chance for ameliorating conditions in our state penal systems.
Search And Seizure - Warrantless Search- Allowable Extent Incident To Arrest; United States V. Robinson, John Nelson Childs
Search And Seizure - Warrantless Search- Allowable Extent Incident To Arrest; United States V. Robinson, John Nelson Childs
Akron Law Review
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Metropolitan Policeman Richard Jencks, on April 19, 1968, halted Willie Robinson for a "routine spot check."' While examining Robinson's driver's license, motor vehicle registration, and selective service card, Officer Jencks noticed an 11-year discrepancy between the two birthdates listed on his driver's license and his draft card. Upon a later check of police traffic records, Officer Jencks discovered that an operator's permit issued to "Willie Robinson, Jr.," born in 1927, had been revoked and that a temporary license had been issued to a "Willie Robinson," born in 1938. Four days later, the same officer observed Robinson operating …
Searches And Seizures - Banks And Banking - Witnesses - Right To Privacy; California Bankers Association V. Schultz, David F. Dybvig
Searches And Seizures - Banks And Banking - Witnesses - Right To Privacy; California Bankers Association V. Schultz, David F. Dybvig
Akron Law Review
FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, Congress enacted what has become known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. In California Bankers Association v. Schultz, certain parts of the Act were subjected to constitutional attack by various plaintiffs, including individual bank customers, a national bank, a bankers association, and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing itself and its bank customer members. The plaintiffs' challenges rested on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Akron Law Review
"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …
A Comprehensive Analysis Of The History Of Interrogation Law, With Some Shots Directed At Miranda V. Arizona, Tracey Maclin
A Comprehensive Analysis Of The History Of Interrogation Law, With Some Shots Directed At Miranda V. Arizona, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
Police interrogation is designed to convict suspects under arrest or those suspected of crime. It does not matter that the suspect may not be guilty; interrogation is instigated to obtain an incriminating statement that will help convict the suspect. While many are quick to defend what are considered the “respectable freedoms” embodied in the Constitution — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion — few champion the Fifth Amendment’s bar against compelled self-incrimination, popularly known as the “right to remain silent,” as a basis for a suspect’s right to resist police questioning. Although it has been …
An Analysis Of The Legal And Practical Implications Of The Potential Increased Participation In Jury Service By Racial Minorities In The U.S. Criminal Justice System, Brian Keith Leonard
An Analysis Of The Legal And Practical Implications Of The Potential Increased Participation In Jury Service By Racial Minorities In The U.S. Criminal Justice System, Brian Keith Leonard
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Trending@Rwu Law: Professor Emily Sack's Post: More Death Penalty Puzzles Highlighted By New Supreme Court Case, Emily Sack
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Richard Broughton
In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …
Statutory Constraints And Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke
Statutory Constraints And Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke
Journal Articles
Although constitutional scholars frequently analyze the relationships between courts and legislatures, they rarely examine the relationship between courts and statutes. This Article is the first to systematically examine how the presence or absence of a statute can influence constitutional doctrine. It analyzes pairs of cases that raise similar constitutional questions, but differ with respect to whether the court is reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. These case pairs suggest that statutes place significant constraints on constitutional decisionmaking. Specifically, in cases that involve a challenge to a statute, courts are less inclined to use doctrine to regulate the behavior of nonjudicial officials. …
Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum
Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Clark, provides an occasion to take stock of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation since the court’s landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford strengthened a defendant’s right to confront his accusers face-to-face, underscoring that cross-examination is the constitutionally preferred method for testing the reliability of accusatory statements. Clark could eliminate that right in a wide range of cases where, although the reliability of a declarant’s out-of-court statements is critically important, a defendant has no right to confrontation.
The Jury's Constitutional Judgment, Nathan Chapman
The Jury's Constitutional Judgment, Nathan Chapman
Scholarly Works
Despite the early American jury’s near-mythical role as a check on overreaching government agents, the contemporary jury’s role in constitutional adjudication remains opaque. Should the jury have the right to nullify criminal statutes on constitutional grounds? Should the jury apply constitutional doctrine in civil rights suits against government officers? Should courts of appeals defer to the jury’s application of constitutional law, or review it de novo?
This Article offers the first holistic analysis of the jury’s role in constitutional adjudication. It argues that the Constitution’s text, history, and structure strongly support the jury’s authority to apply constitutional law to the …