Law Commons^™

Criminal Law—Uniform Traffic Ticket Used As An Information For A Pleading, Robert Lane

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707 (1957).

Criminal Law—Right To Speedy Trial, Richard Brocklebank, George M. Gibson

Buffalo Law Review

People v. White, 2 N.Y.2d 220, 159 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1957); People v. Chirieleison, 3 N.Y.2d 170, 164 N.Y.S2d 726 (1957).

Criminal Law—Right To Counsel, Robert Lane

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Marincic, 2 N.Y. 2d 181, 158 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1957).

Criminal Law—Coram Nobis, Thomas T. Basil

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Sullivan, 3 N.Y.2d 196, 165 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1957); People v. Smyth, 3 N.Y.2d 184, 165 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1957); People v. Silverman, 3 N.Y.2d 200, 165 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1957); People v. Shapiro, 3 N.Y.2d 203, 165 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1957).

Criminal Law—Grand Jury Indictment, James Carlo

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Salerno, 3 N.Y.2d 175, 164 N.Y.S.2d 720 (1957).

Criminal Law—Appeal And Error, Jack Getman

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Ochs, 3 N.Y.2d 54, 163 N.Y.S.2d 671 (1957); People v. Mendes, 3 N.Y.2d 120, 164 N.Y.S.2d 401 (1957); People v. LaMarca, 3 N.Y.2d 452, 165 N.YS.2d 753 (1957).

The Effect Of Proposed Rules 7 Through 25 On Present Washington Procedures (Part I), Robert Meisenholder

Washington Law Review

On January 2, 1957, the Supreme Court of Washington published the pleading and party rules, previously recommended by the Judicial Council for adoption as part of the procedural law of this state. The court did not make the rules effective but requested criticism and study by members of the bar. This preliminary publication permits examination for possible defects in the new procedure and acquaints the lawyers of the state with the rules in advance of their effective date. For aid in the study of the proposed rules, this article will review the general changes they would make in present Washington …

Criminal Law And Procedure -- 1957 Tennessee Survey, James B. Earle

Vanderbilt Law Review

Homicide: The statutory requirement that a killing be "willful; deliberate, malicious, and premeditated" for a finding of murder in the first degree is not applicable to a killing committed while in the perpetration of one of the felonies listed in the statute. This question arose in Farmer v. State, in which it appeared that the killing resulted from the setting on fire of a dwelling, i.e. arson, by the defendant. It was urged on appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court that there was no proof of felonious homicide because there was no showing of an intent to kill nor even …

Discovery And Inspection In Federal Criminal Procedure, Lester B. Orfield

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law: Entrapment, Jack L. Getman

Buffalo Law Review

United States v. Masciale, 236 F. 2d 601 (2d Cir. 1956).

Discovery And Inspection In Federal Criminal Procedure, Lester B. Orfield

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination: Statute Discovered After Claim, Thomas T. Basil

Buffalo Law Review

United States v. Courtney, 236 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1956).

Evidence - Search And Seizure - Standing To Suppress Evidence Obtained By Unconstitutional Search And Seizure, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The most radical departure of the new California doctrine from federal precedents, however, lies in the rejection of the requirement of "standing" which the federal courts have always imposed. In People v. Martin the California court announced its willingness to permit any criminal defendant to move for the exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure -regardless of whether it was his premises that were searched or his property that was seized.

Rejection of the requirement of standing by this outstanding court calls for a re-evaluation of the requirement as it is imposed in every other jurisdiction that observes …

Federal Criminal Procedure - Venue Situs Of Crime Of Failing To Perform Statutory Duty, John C. Baity

Michigan Law Review

Three defendants, classified conscientious objectors, were prosecuted for violations of the Military Training and Service Act. Defendants were ordered to report to their local boards for civilian work assignments in lieu of induction. They reported to their boards but refused to comply with instructions ordering them to report at hospitals located in judicial districts other than those of their boards. The Third Circuit held that the crime of "knowingly failing or neglecting to obey any such order" was committed in the district where the hospital was located and that venue was proper in such district. On similar facts the Tenth …

Criminal Law—Indictment—Defects, Jack Getman

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Close (Peo. Ex Rel. Hirschberg v. County Court), 1 N. Y. 2d 258, 134 N. E. 2d 818 (1956).

New Trial In Federal Criminal Cases, Lester B. Orfield

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—Trial—Prejudicial Statements By District Attorney, Robert Casey Jr.

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Reade, 1 N. Y. 2d 459, 136 N. E. 2d 497 (1956).

Criminal Law—Confession—Requirement Of Additional Proof, Robert Lane

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Louis, 20. 1 N. Y. 2d 137, 134 N. E. 2d 110 (1956).

Rule 558 - What The Jury May Take To The Jury Room - Bell V. State, Herbert A. Seidman

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Authority Of A Trial Commissioner To Try Criminal Cases In Quarterly Court, Arthur L. Brooks Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Effect Of Variance Between Pleading And Proof In Indiana Criminal Procedure

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Book Review, William K. Gardner

Cleveland State Law Review

Reviewing Frank C. Leyshon, The Ohio Practice Manual, W.H. Anderson Co., 1956

Criminal Procedure--Right Of State To Appeal, Henry H. Dickinson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Complaint In Federal Criminal Procedure, Lester B. Orfield

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—Confession—Right To Warning, Richard Boccio

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Duell, 1 N. Y. 2d 132, 134 N. E. 2d 106 (1956).

Criminal Law—Evidence—Prosecuting Attorney As Unsworn Witness, Robert Casey Jr.

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Lovello, 1 N. Y. 2d 436, 136 N. E. 2d 483 (1956).

Criminal Law—Habeas Corpus—Running Of Sentence, Robert Casey Jr.

Buffalo Law Review

People ex rel. Rainone v. Murphy, 1 N. Y. 2d 367, 135 N. E. 2d 567 (1956).

Legislation - Federal Criminal Procedure - Modification Of Jencks Decision, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. During the trial, the court denied defendant's motion to order the government to produce for defendant's inspection reports submitted by government witnesses to government agents. The reports dealt with the same subject about which these witnesses later testified. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one justice dissenting. The government has a privilege to refuse to surrender statements made by its prospective witnesses, but it may claim the privilege only at the expense of a dismissal of its case …

Constitutional Law - Post-Conviction Due Process - Right Of Indigent To Review Of Non-Constitutional Trial Errors, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this comment is to examine a new development. in post-conviction due process: Griffin v. Illinois. This case announces a new principle of constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment based on an almost indistinguishable combination of due process and equal protection elements.

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …