Law Commons^™

Criminal Procedure And Criminal Law: Virginia Supreme Court Decisions During The 70'S, Michael J. Barbour, Thomas E. Carr, Sarah H. Finley, Jeannie L. Pilant

University of Richmond Law Review

The purpose of this note is to examine the decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court during the period between 1970-1980 in the area of criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. Legislative changes will not be dealt with in depth except as they have affected these decisions. Because of space constraints, a complete review of all areas is impossible; therefore, review has been limited to those issues most likely to be of interest to the practicing attorney. The discussion will also attempt to establish the position of the Virginia Supreme Court on these matters in relation to the United States Supreme …

Public Access To Criminal Trials: Richmond Newspapers, Inc. V. Virginia, Christopher C. Spencer

University of Richmond Law Review

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia is, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "watershed case." For the first time, the Court recognized that some sort of first amendment right of access to government proceedings exists. The Court, in a plurality opinion (joined by two Justices, accompanied by five concurring opinions and one dissent), held that the right of the public to attend criminal trials is "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment."

Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams

University of Richmond Law Review

On December 31, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the landmark Privacy Act of 1974 into law. One of the key concepts of the Act is the principle of disclosure limitation, which limits the ability of the federal government to disclose the contents of per- sonal records in its possession. In the words of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, this principle "is designed to pre- vent.., the wrongful disclosure and use of personal files held by Federal agencies."

Professor Nagel's Reflections On Cardozo, Anthony D'Amato

Cardozo Law Review

In the first issue of the Cardozo Law Review, Professor Ernest Nagel, in Reflections on "The Nature of the Judicial Process," criticized Justice Cardozo's professed abandonment of the distinction between custom and law. Professor Anthony DAmato, in Judicial Legislation, argued that Cardozo's opinions belied his assertion of the necessity for judicial legislation, and adhered generally to the theory that cases should be decided in accordance with law as it is found, rather than made, by judges.

In this commentary, Professor D'Amato argues that Professor Nagel's assertion of a distinction between law and custom is inconsistent with the development of the …

In Memory Of Monrad G. Paulsen, Sanford H. Kadish

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Six Years After, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect since 1975. Six years of experience is not much time in which to assess such a complex and important body of law. Nevertheless, there is now some "evidence" of the impact of the Federal Rules on the various states and circuits.

The Rules do seem to have proved successful enough to stimulate widespread imitation. Approximately half the states in the United States have or will very shortly have evidence codes patterned substantially on the Rules, even down to their numbers. Many of the remaining states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have …

Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Rules, William H. Fortune

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Case For Jury Determination Of Search And Seizure Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In a criminal case the option to return a general verdict of acquittal invests the jury with the raw power to nullify many legal determinations, including the trial judge's ruling that a search is constitutional. While courts grudingly acknowledge the existence of an extra-legal jury nullification power, courts do not recognize any jury prerogative to determine the lawfulness of a search. The United States Supreme Court's discussion of the jury's role in interpreting and applying the fourth amendment consists of one terse statement that the legality of a search "is a question of fact and law for the court and …

Recent Development, Constitutional Law: Protection Against Illegal Search And Seizure--Blackie's House Of Beef, Inc. V. Castillo, No. 79-1057 & 79-2358 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 1981), Stephen James Anaya

Publications

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Discovery: An Overview, Harry G. Deitzler, Susan Klimas, Walt Auvil

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1980

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Radar 1980: Has The Black Box Lost Its Magic., Joseph Gary Trichter, Joseph Patterson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

The Impact Of Expanded Rules For Determining What Constitutes The "Same Offense" For Double Jeopardy Purposes: Illinois V. Vitale , David G. Harlow

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Estelle V. Smith, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Michael M. V. Superior Court Of Sonoma County, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Criminal Trials In Absentia: A Proposed Reform For Indiana, Myra L. Willis

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure–Juvenile Confessions In Arkansas, Ann Kristen Kilgore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy: An Illusory Remedy For Governmental Overreaching At Trial, Mary J. Fahey

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defending Conspiracy Cases: Mission Impossible?, Paul Marcus

Popular Media

Defending conspiracy cases has never been an easy task. There were days in which joint trials of 20, 30, 40, or even 50 defendants were not uncommon, creating insuperable problems for defense lawyers. Even though large joint-defendant trials are not as common today, several problems remain, particularly in light of the frequent use of the conspiracy charge at the federal level. In this article I will discuss some of the recent issues which create special difficulties for criminal defense lawyers. With regard to these issues, there is, as some would say, good news and bad news.

Application Of The "Exculpatory No" Defense To Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. $ 1001: United States V. Fitzgibbon, James M. Dester

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court defined "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda; and in United States v. Henry, it defined "deliberate elicitation" within the meaning of Massiah. This article explores the implications of Innis and Henry, suggests readings of the new tests consistent with their purposes, and applies the tests to several situations where the scope of the fifth and sixth amendment protections remains unclear.

An Application Of Double Jeopardy And Collateral Estoppel Principles To Successive Prison Disciplinary And Criminal Prosecutions, Joseph S. Colussi

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Conversation Between Police Officers Eliciting Admission By Suspect Not A Miranda Interrogation Unless The Officers Should Have Known Their Words Or Actions Were Reasonably Likely To Elicit An Incriminating Response., Janice L. Jenning

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

The Three Faces Of Double Jeopardy: Reflections On Government Appeals Of Criminal Sentences, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United States v. DiFrancesco presents such a test to the law of double jeopardy, raising the question whether the government may unilaterally appeal a defendant's criminal sentence for the purpose of increasing the sentence. The question cannot be answered by facile reference to the text of the fifth amendment, because the terms of the double jeopardy clause are not self-defining. Nor can it be settled by reference to history, because the issue has not arisen with any frequency until now.

Mandatory Life Imprisonment Under Texas Recidivist Statute Not Violative Of Eighth Amendment When Applied To One Convicted Of Three Non-Violent, Property-Related Felonies., Patricia E. Rant

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

The Fifth Amendment And The Inference Of Guilt From Silence: Griffin V. California After Fifteen Years, Donald B. Ayer

Michigan Law Review

This Article will begin with an examination of the historic (and present) purposes underlying the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, upon which any justification of the no-comment rule must ultimately rest. It will explore the danger that these purposes may be thwarted not only when defendants are actually compelled to be witnesses against themselves, but also when significant burdens are placed on defendants who choose not to testify. In Griffin, the Court reasoned that comment on the defendant's silence amounted to such an impermissible burden. But the Court failed to examine the weight of this burden. This failure makes …

The Fuller Court And State Criminal Process Threshold Of Modern Limitations On Government, William F. Duker

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Commentary--The Federal Criminal Code Reform Act And New Sentencing Alternatives, Edward M. Kennedy

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Instructions V. Jury Charges, J. Patrick Jones

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.