Law Commons^™

The Exclusionary Rule: Not The "Expressed Juice Of The Woolly-Headed Thistle", Keith A. Fabi

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Future Irreparable Harm: A Ground For Release In Federal Extradition Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unitary Criminal Proceeding: Denial Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

18 U.S.C. § 3501 And The Admissibility Of Confessions Obtained During Unnecessary Prearraignment Delay, Matthew W. Frank

Michigan Law Review

Part I thus argues that the admissibility of post-sixth-hour confessions is governed by Mallory, under which a voluntary confession is inadmissible if, but only if, it follows a period of unnecessary delay. Part II addresses a possible objection to this conclusion - namely, that, with limited exceptions, subsection 350l(c) renders all post-sixth hour confessions inadmissible without regard to the reasonableness of the prearraignment delay. This interpretation is derived by negative implication from the proviso in subsection 350l(c) and would require courts to suppress confessions even though there has been no unnecessary delay, and even though the confessions would be …

Interlocutory Appeal Of Preindictment Suppression Motions Under Rule 41 ( E ), Clifford A. Godiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that preindictment rulings denying 41(e) motions are not immediately appealable. Part I discusses decisions that mandate dismissal of such appeals for want of jurisdiction. Part II examines the policy rationales behind these precedents. Finally, Part III argues that an adequate remedy exists outside of rule 41(e), rendering immediate appellate review of rulings on 41(e) motions unnecessary.

Constitutional Law—Sixth Amendment—Significance Of Testimony Constitutes A Factor In Determining Right Of Confrontation, Brendan M. Donahue

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach Criminal Defendants - Do The Risks Outweigh The Benefits?, James W. Betro

Antioch Law Journal

The use of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant-witness is generally accepted in most American jurisdictions.'Such evidence is allowed in order to present the jury with the general character of a witness so that they may be better able to decide as to his or her tendency to lie on the witness stand.2 The rationale behind this rule is based on the theory that a witness who has been previously convicted of a crime may be less likely to tell the truth than someone who has never been convicted.3 Unfortunately, when a criminal defendant takes the …

Fifth Amendment Privilege For Producing Corporate Documents, Nancy J. King

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a person should be able to assert her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination when her act of producing corporate documents pursuant to a subpoena causes her to make testimonial admissions that are incriminating. Part I briefly examines the two approaches the Supreme Court has used to decide claims of self-incrimination for records production. First, it explains the Court's traditional entity doctrine which, by focusing on the nature of the documents and the capacity in which they are held, has prohibited records producers from invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the records produced are those …

An Analysis Of Public Attitudes Toward The Insanity Defense, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Results from a public opinion survey of knowledge, attitudes, and support for the insanity defense indicate that people dislike the insanity defense for both retributive and utilitarian reasons: they want insane law-breakers punished, and they believe that insanity defense procedures fail to protect the public. However, people vastly overestimate the use and success of the insanity plea. Several attitudinal and demographic variables that other researchers have found to be associated with people's support for the death penalty and perceptions of criminal sentencing are also related to support for the insanity defense. Implications for public policy are discussed.

The Right To Counsel During Custodial Interrogation: Equivocal References To An Attorney-Determining What Statements Or Conduct Should Constitute An Accused's Invocation Of The Right To Counsel, Matthew W.D. Bowman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all persons the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the fifth amendment to require a specified set of procedural safeguards that law enforcement officers must follow to protect adequately each individual's fifth amendment rights. The Miranda safeguards require that prior to an accused's custodial interrogation, government officials must inform the accused that he has the right to remain silent; that any of his statements maybe used against him in a subsequent criminal action; that he has the right to confer with counsel; …

Section 3142(E) Of The 1984 Bail Reform Act: Rebuttable Presumption Or Mandatory Detention?, Evan Shapiro

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silencing Gideon's Trumpet: The Plight Of The Indigent Prisoner, Allison I. Connelly

Law Faculty Popular Media

In this newsletter article, Professor Connelly discusses the difficulties faced by indigent prisoners in gaining access to the justice system.

Constitutional Law—Criminal Procedure—Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of The Insane, Jonathan Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Charge Of Rape By Sexual Intercourse Sufficient To Convict Of Rape By Deviate Sexual Activity Under The Arkansas Rape Statute, Vickie A. Warner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Selling The Idea To Tell The Truth: The Professional Interrogator And Modern Confessions Law, Joseph D. Grano

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (3d edition) by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley

Criminal Procedure In A Conservative Age: A Time To Rediscover The Critical Nonconstitutional Issues, Richard S. Frase

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

V. Criminal Law And Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Florida Reverses Its Per Se Reversal Rule On Improper Prosecutorial Comment On A Defendant's Right To Remain Silent, J. Allison Defoor Ii, Randolph Braccialarghe

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Defendant's Due Process Right To A Psychiatric Expert - Ake V. Oklahoma, William D. Auman

Campbell Law Review

This note analyzes the public policy implications of the Ake decision while considering the resulting impact on North Carolina. The note also evaluates the soundness of the decision with respect to the requirement of a preliminary showing. Finally, recommendations for implementing the Ake rule are discussed while examining whether "access to a competent psychiatrist" is in fact a standard of constitutional disadvantage for the indigent criminal defendant.

"Rummaging Through A Wilderness Of Verbiage" - The Charge Conference, Jury Argument And Instructions, The Hon. Thomas S. Watts

Campbell Law Review

Judges frequently assume that a lawyer who has engaged in the preparation of pleadings, the extensive discovery practice permitted by both civil and criminal statutes, and who has presented all of his or her evidence to a jury has also researched and understands the law applicable to the lawsuit. Lawyers frequently assume that a judge who has reviewed the court file and presided over the evidentiary portion of the trial also fully comprehends the law of the action. Unfortunately, neither assumption is completely correct, although both bar and trial bench correctly interpret and apply our complex and ever growing body …

Using The Fair Sentencing Act To Protect The Criminal Defendant, Valerie B. Spalding

Campbell Law Review

This Survey provides a guide to defense attorneys who must deal with the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors set out in the Fair Sentencing Act. The Survey reviews the major cases handed down by the North Carolina Supreme Court since the Act was passed. It then concentrates on all cases from the appellate courts from August 1981 through August 1986, with a view to analyzing each aggravating and mitigating factor. The Survey seeks to show what factors are most likely to result in a remand for resentencing on appeal, and what elements each factor should contain for a successful appeal.

Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Procedure — Absent A Showing Of Prejudice To The Defendant, Due Process Is Not Violated By Prosecutor's Contact With Counsel For Defense Witness In An Effort To Prevent Perjury. United States V. Teague, 737 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1984), Cert. Denied, 105 S.Ct. 913 (1985), Dennis Patrick Mcglone

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Procedure — Despite Discrepancy Between Prior Description And Defendant's Actual Appearance, Eyewitness' Testimony Of Pretrial And In-Court Identifications Of Defendant Is Sufficient Evidence To Sustain A Conviction. Branch V. State, 305 Md. 177, 502 A.2d 496 (1986), Lisa Kristine Hoffman

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure, Alan Raphael, Leslie Khoshaba

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Death Penalty, Ellen Y. Suni

Faculty Works

In 1977, the Missouri legislature adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme defining capital murder and prescribing procedures to be utilized in imposing the death penalty in this state. After making minor revisions in the scheme, the legislature substantially revamped the homicide statutes in 1983. Included in this revision were changes in the definition of the substantive offense and revisions in the grounds and procedures for imposition of the death penalty. These legislative revisions and judicial interpretations have substantially broadened the class of defendants to whom the death penalty is applicable and substantially decreased the likelihood of successful appeal from a sentence …

Administrative Search And Seizure Whither The Warrant, Jack M. Kress, Carole D. Iannelli

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Discretion In Japan: A Response, Daniel H. Foote

Articles

Marsha Goodman's Prosecutorial Discretion in Japan, with its thoroughly researched description of the manner in which that discretion is exercised-including several new case studies-is an important addition to English-language literature on the Japanese legal system and raises numerous interesting issues regarding the Japanese criminal justice system.

Goodman focuses much of her attention on the lengthy battle over the abuse of prosecutorial discretion doctrine in Japan. This discussion provides a fine example of a classic pattern of legal debate in Japan. As in this case, defense counsel familiar with an issue frequently initiate movements for change in criminal procedure standards …

Compelling Testimony In Alaska: The Coming Rejection Of Use And Derivative Use Immunity, Jeff M. Feldman

Articles

Until 1972, when the Supreme Court upheld a federal use andderivative use immunity statute in Kastigar v. United States, virtually every court that considered the issue of the compulsion of testimony favored transactional immunity. It appears that most courts interpreted the Supreme Court's 1892 decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock as finding only transactional immunity constitutional. Since Kastigar, the Alaska Supreme Court has had several opportunities totake sides in the debate over the grant of immunity constitutionally required to compel testimony. On each such occasion, the court has expressed a preference for transactional immunity, but has carefullyavoided resolving the …

The Twelve-Person, Unanimous Jury: Does It Have More Than History To Recommend It?, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

My focus today will be on the twelve-person unanimous jury and on the contrasts between such juries and six-person juries or twelve-person juries than can return verdicts by ten-two or nine-three votes. Until about fifteen years ago, it appeared that the sixth and seventh amendments required all federal juries to have twelve members who reached unanimous verdicts, and it appeared possible that the Supreme Court would force the states to conform to the federal standards. Instead, the court did almost the opposite. It sanctioned juries as small as size six in state criminal cases and federal civil cases, and it …