Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Administratioin Of Criminal Justice In The U.S.S.R., John H. Shoemaker
The Administratioin Of Criminal Justice In The U.S.S.R., John H. Shoemaker
Akron Law Review
The above procedure in the United States is conducted as follows: on the state and local level by the local police departments, with the arraignment and indictment being handled by the local county prosecutor; or on the federal level by federal police agencies operating through the U. S. attorney. The incarceration of the convicted person is handled by county or state agencies on the one hand, or federal penal institutions on the other. One similarity between the Russian System and ours is that in United States criminal practice on the federal level the coordination and uniformity essential to reform and …
Application Of Ohio Post-Conviction Procedure - Effect Of Prior Judgment On.; Coley V. Alvis, Thomas A. Geraci Jr.
Application Of Ohio Post-Conviction Procedure - Effect Of Prior Judgment On.; Coley V. Alvis, Thomas A. Geraci Jr.
Akron Law Review
In the per curiam decision of Coley v. Alvis' the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed an Ohio District Court decision dismissing Coley's petition for habeas corpus for failure to exhaust his state remedies. The circuit Court remanded, stating that it would be futile for petitioner to attempt to void his conviction under the Ohio post-conviction statute because of the narrow limits placed on it by the state courts and that there was consequently no longer any effective state remedy. Since the grounds that petitioner set forth to sustain his writ did not fall within any …
Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt
Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt
Akron Law Review
After the decisions in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), which revealed the Supreme Court's solicitude of the constitutional rights of adults, it seemed improbable that the lower courts would long be permitted to continue ignoring the constitutional rights of juveniles. Thus the decision in the principal case, which represents a breakthrough in the assurance of a fair hearing to minors, comes as no surprise. The case holds that under the Fourteenth Amendment a juvenile has a right to notice of …
The Admissibility Of Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Evidence Pursuant To Stipulation In Criminal Proceedings, Bruce C. Heslop
The Admissibility Of Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Evidence Pursuant To Stipulation In Criminal Proceedings, Bruce C. Heslop
Akron Law Review
American courts have traditionally held that evidence pertaining to the results of a lie-detector test is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding on behalf of either the prosecution or defense….In recent years, however, a few jurisdictions have withdrawn from the traditional approach and have admitted lie-detector evidence in limited situations, notwithstanding objection by the adverse party….The decision of whether or not to adopt the approach presented here must critically evaluate the potential value of polygraph evidence along with its potential dangers. In so doing, the courts of Ohio should determine whether a procedure may be devised to maximize the value and …
Evidence - Admissibility Of Statements To Parole Officer - Miranda Warnings; State V. Gallagher, Thomas A. Treadon
Evidence - Admissibility Of Statements To Parole Officer - Miranda Warnings; State V. Gallagher, Thomas A. Treadon
Akron Law Review
The opinion handed down in this recent decision from the Montgomery County Court of Appeals examined a question of first impression in the courts of Ohio. The issue presented was "whether a parole or probation officer is a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Miranda and thus subject to the Miranda requirements of constitutional warnings to suspects during custodial interrogation...."
Searches And Seizures - Arrest - Motor Vehicle Exception To Warrant Requirement - Limits? People V. Dumas, Gordon D. Arnold
Searches And Seizures - Arrest - Motor Vehicle Exception To Warrant Requirement - Limits? People V. Dumas, Gordon D. Arnold
Akron Law Review
On May 11, 1970, officers of the Los Angeles Police Department approached the apartment of Clay Dumas. Based on a report from a reliable informant, whose information had been corroborated by independent police investigation, the police had obtained a warrant to search Dumas' apartment and "all trash cans, storage areas, garages and carports which are assigned to and/or used by occupants of the aforesaid apartment." The objects of the search were certain stolen bonds and bank checks which, according to the police informant, Dumas had been in possession of for about eight weeks; also narcotics and narcotics gear. The police …
Entrapment - An End? State V. Rowan, Kenneth D. Morse
Entrapment - An End? State V. Rowan, Kenneth D. Morse
Akron Law Review
Rowan creates a trap for the individual who is confronted by the undercover narcotics agent and who had no intention of committing the crime. That the crime is more likely to occur under Rowan cannot be doubted. It is of utmost significance that the narcotics agent may sell and deliver drugs. Courts cannot ignore a change of social mores which have occurred. 25 More and more people are willing to accept the existence of conduct which was previously branded as criminal behavior. It is precisely these people that the Rowan decision sets out to trap.
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Akron Law Review
“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”