Law Commons^™

"Immigrants Are Not Criminals": Respectability, Immigration Reform, And Hyperincarceration, Rebecca Sharpless

Rebecca Sharpless

The Charter And Criminal Justice: Twenty-Five Years Later, Jamie Cameron, James Stribopoulos

Jamie Cameron

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms turned twenty-five in 2007, Professors Jamie Cameron and James Stribopoulos organized a conference which brought together leading thinkers on the Charterand criminal justice. A strong faculty of academics, judges and practitioners debated and discussed the Charter's impact on criminal justice. The papers from this conference, which have now been edited by Professors Cameron and Stribopoulos, provide a fascinating look at how the Charter has transformed the Canadian criminal justice system.

United States V. Peters Case File, James Seckinger, Kenneth Broun.

James H. Seckinger

No abstract provided.

International Criminal Law: Cases And Materials, Jimmy Gurule, Jordan Paust, Bruce Zagaris, Leila Sadat, Michael Scharf, M. Cherif Bassiouni

Jimmy Gurule

The fourth edition has been significantly updated, especially to reflect case trends in the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (encompassing, among other matters, individual responsibility, defenses, war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity). Some of the chapters have new sub-subtitles and relevant domestic cases have been added or noted in various chapters. There are also additions to the Documents Supplement.

United States V. William Lloyd, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.

You Can't Handle The Truth! Trial Juries And Credibility, Renée Hutchins

Renée M. Hutchins

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well.

Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion Of Rights And Remedies, Leonard Sosnov

Leonard N Sosnov

Over fifty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the Due Process Clause requires prosecutors to disclose materially favorable evidence to the defense. The Brady Court emphasized the need to treat all defendants fairly and to provide each accused with a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. While Brady held great promise for defendants to receive fundamentally fair access to evidence, the subsequent decisions of the Court have fallen short of meeting this promise.

Since Brady, the Court has limited the disclosure obligation by failing to separately determine rights and remedies. Additionally, …

The Crime Victim’S "Right" To A Criminal Prosecution: A Proposed Model Statute For The Governance Of Private Criminal Prosecution, Peter Davis

Peter L. Davis

The thesis of this article is that the public prosecutor should to have a monopoly on criminal prosecutions; some supplementary system of private criminal prosecution should be available. Two such systems, or models, currently exist in New York. The first model, available statewide, theoretically allows a complainant to initiate a non-felony criminal prosecution without any screening by a prosecutor or judge. This system is unwise, unworkable and illusory because it obscures the exercise of judicial discretion and focuses the court’s attention on the wrong issues, usually precluding the crime victim’s complaint. The second model, limited by statute to New York …