Law Commons^™

The Breath Of The Unfee'd Lawyer: Statutory Fee Limitations And Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel In Capital Litigation, Albert L. Vreeland Ii

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that fee limitations deprive indigent defendants of their right to effective assistance of counsel. Part I of this Note reviews state court decisions that address Sixth Amendment challenges to fee limitations, yet fail to address the broader concerns about the appointed counsel system. Part II considers the inherent disincentives and burdens fee limitations impose on attorneys and suggests that the limits threaten the indigent accused's right to effective assistance of counsel. A comparison of the fee limitations and the time required to prepare and try a capital case reveals the gross inadequacy of statutory fee provisions. In …

Suicide And Justice, Arthur J. Jacobson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mccleskey V. Zant 111 S. Ct. 1454 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Fulminante 111 S. Ct. 1246, (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Litigating The "Vileness" Factor In Virginia, Victor A. Lago

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Coleman V. Thompson 111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Ford V. Georgia 111 S. Ct. 850 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Lankford V. Idaho 111 S. Ct. 1723 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Yates V. Evatt 111 S. Ct. 1884 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Quesinberry V. Commonwealth 241 Va. 364,402 S.E.2d 218 (1991)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Virginia Supreme Court And Thirteen Years Of Death Sentence Review, Anne E. Mcinerney

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …

The Admissibility Of Dna Testing, D. H. Kaye

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Caveats Concerning Dna As Criminal Identification Evidence: With Thanks To The Reverend Bayes, Richard Lempert

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert-Novice Differences And Implications For Choice Of Bench Versus Jury Trial, Anne W. Martin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Distribution Of Damages In Car Accidents Through The Use Of Neural Networks, Lothar Philipps

Cardozo Law Review

After a traffic accident the damage has to be fairly divided among the parties involved, and a ratio has to be determined. There are many precedents for this, and judges have developed catalogues suggesting ratios for common types of accidents.

The problem that "every case is different," however, remains. Many cases have familiar aspects, but also unfamiliar ones. Even if a case is composed of several familiar aspects with established ratios, the question remains as to how these are to be figured into one ratio. The first thought would be to invent a mathematical formula, but such formulae are rigid …

Influence Diagrams, Bayesian Imperialism, And The Collins Case: An Appeal To Reason, Ward Edwards

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comment On Edwards: Ward Edwards And The New Bayesian Software, David T. Wasserman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Dna “Fingerprinting” Can Teach The Law About The Rest Of Forensic Science, Michael J. Saks, Jonathan J. Koehler

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Missing Evidence, Dale A. Nance

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fall And Rise Of The Criminal Contingent Fee, Peter Lushing

Articles

The article argues that the ban on contingent fees for criminal defense attorneys, established by the American Bar Association in 1969, is outdated and should be repealed. It contends that the ban is rooted in historical prejudice and unfounded concerns about conflicts of interest, rather than empirical evidence. The author suggests that the Supreme Court's 1989 decision implicitly approving contingent fees in certain criminal cases presents an opportunity to reconsider this prohibition. Repealing the ban could benefit middle-class defendants and allow for regulation and data collection to address potential issues.

Mandatory Hiv Testing Of Rape Defendants: Constitutional Rights Are Sacrificed In A Vain Attempt To Assist The Victim, Raymond S. Franks

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment And Its Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

"The history of liberty," Justice Felix Frankfurter once noted, "has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards" and "the history of the destruction of liberty," Professor Anthony Amsterdam has added, "has largely been the history of the relaxation of those safeguards in the face of plausible sounding governmental claims of a need to deal with widely frightening and emotion freighted threats to the good order of society." These plausible-sounding government claims are being heard today -and they are putting enormous pressure on the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional provision that protects "the right of the people to be secure …

In The Aftermath Of Soering, Is Interstate Extradition To Virginia Illegal?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribe V. Mancha, No. 90-C-1355, 91-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals for the Blackfeet Indian Reservation dismissed the case against the defendant because he was denied his right to a speedy trial by jury. The Court found that the standard timeframe accepted by most courts for a speedy trial is 180 days, and Mancha was brought to trial after 284 days. The Court held that this delay in the trial date violated the defendant’s rights as defined in Rule 58, Chapter 9 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code. The Court further ordered that the trial court implement a procedure at arraignment for documenting waiver of jury …

Tribe V. Mancha, No. 90-C-1355, 91-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 1991)., Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Court of Appeals for the Blackfeet Indian Reservation dismissed the case against the defendant because he was denied his right to a speedy trial by jury. The Court found that the standard timeframe accepted by most courts for a speedy trial is 180 days, and Mancha was brought to trial after 284 days. The Court held that this delay in the trial date violated the defendant’s rights as defined in Rule 58, Chapter 9 of the Blackfeet Law and Order Code. The Court further ordered that the trial court implement a procedure at arraignment for documenting waiver of jury …

The Jurisdiction To Do Justice: Florida's Jury Override And The State Constitution, Michael Mello

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minnick V. Mississippi: Additional Protection For The Criminal Defendant, Gabe Hotard Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Minnick v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court held that when counsel is requested by an accused in custody, interrogation of the accused must cease, and officials may not re-initiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney. The privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the fifth amendment and as developed into its modern form nearly a quarter-century ago in Miranda v. Arizona provided the backbone of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's holding clarifies the previously unclear issue of whether counsel's presence on behalf of an accused is required at any interrogation …

Constitutional Criminal Procedure, John L. Carroll

Mercer Law Review

In 1990 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was a court in transition. In the Fall of 1989, Judges Roney and Hill took senior status. Then in December of 1989, Judge Vance fell victim to a mail bomb which had been sent to his house. The court then entered 1990 with three vacancies and a tremendous workload. President Bush made appointments to fill two of those vacancies. Judge Birch joined the court on June 12, 1990, and Judge Dubina moved up from the district court of the Middle District of Alabama on October 5, 1990. Despite …

Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.