Law Commons^™

Criminal Procedure, Howard Suskin, Amy Rosenberg Small

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Racism In The Adversary System: The Defendant's Use Of Peremptory Challenges, J. Alexander Tanford

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure In The "Land Of Oz": Lessons For America, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Stanford V. Kentucky: The Minimum Age For The Maximum Penalty - Death, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (1990), Alison R. Faltersack

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Foreiture, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (1990), Stephen M. Kightlinger

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation At Capital Sentencing Hearings: Illinois Violates The Federal Constitution By Permitting Juries To Sentence Defendants To Death On The Basis Of Ordinarily Inadmissible Hearsay, Mark Silverstein

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Addressing The Needs Of Attorneys For The Damned, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

This article is an introduction to the UMKC Law Review symposium issue dedicated to exploring the topic of capital punishment. UMKC Professor of Law Sean O’Brien shares how the growing importance of capital litigation makes this a timely and appropriate subject for consideration and shares how the university and the Law Review's attention to the death penalty debate contributes to more than just academic discussion.

Waiver Of Constitutional Issues In Criminal Cases: Confusion In The Illinois Supreme Court, 11 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 55 (1990), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Vindicating The Defendant's Constitutional Right To Testify At A Criminal Trial: The Need For An On-The-Record Waiver, 51 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 809 (1990), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"The Judge Would Then Be The Legislator": Dismantling Separation Of Powers In The Name Of Sentencing Reform—Mistretta V. United States, 109 S. Ct. 647 (1989), Kristin L. Timm

Washington Law Review

In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch charged with promulgating binding sentencing guidelines for federal crimes. In Mistretta v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not violate separation of powers principles. This Note asserts that the Court misapplied separation of powers theory, and that the Sentencing Commission violates separation of powers in two ways. First, by delegating to the judicial branch the authority to create sentencing guidelines which have the effect of law, Congress impermissibly aggrandized the core function of …

Lockhart V. Nelson: Trial Error, Evidentiary Insufficiency, And Double Jeopardy, Scott E. Schul

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Carrot And Stick" Sentencing: Structuring Incentives For Organizational Defendants, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The new "Draft Guidelines for Organizational Defendants" released by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on October 25, 1990, explicitly adopt a "'carrot and stick' approach" to sentencing. While the boldly instrumental use made of sentencing penalties and credits in these guidelines will trouble some, the larger question is whether the Commission's social engineering will work. Two issues stand out: First, is the Commission's carrot mightier than its stick? At first glance, this may seem a surprising question because the "stick" in the Commission's guidelines seemingly packs a Ruthian wallop: fines under the draft guidelines are based on a multiple of the …

More Than "Slightly Retro:" The Rehnquist Court's Rout Of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction In Teague V. Lane, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Someone I know, more a student of contemporary fashion than I, sometimes describes people dressed in uniformly dark clothing as "slightly retro." I am not sure of the allusion, but what I can discern leads me to think that the Supreme Court's nonretroactivity decisions beginning with Teague v. Lane are – puns aside – more than just "slightly retro."

The Court's innovation may be stated as follows: For 160 years, Congress empowered federal judges to order state officials to release or retry individuals held in custody in violation of federal law as those federal judges, and not the state officials, …

Solving The Pretext Puzzle: The Importance Of Ulterior Motives And Fabrications In The Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment Pretext Doctrine, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the pretext issue. It shows that the Supreme Court's definition of pretext is broader than the definition of pretext used by these commentators. The Supreme Court's definition includes both "legal" and fabricated pretexts. In a "legal" pretext, the government offers a justification that is not the true reason for the police activity, but that, if the motivation of the officer is not considered, legally justifies the activity. In a fabricated pretext, the government offers a justification …

Use Of The "Zola Plea" In New Jersey Capital Prosecutions, J Thomas Sullivan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Ilene H. Nagel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Form And Function In The Administration Of Justice: The Bill Of Rights And Federal Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Part I critiques the Report's insistence that accurate fact finding exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the objectives of criminal justice, identifies the fundamental role of the Bill of Rights in the American political order, and situates federal habeas corpus within that framework. Part II traces the Report's historical review of the federal habeas jurisdiction and critiques the Report's too-convenient reliance on selected materials that, on examination, fail to undermine conventional understandings of the writ's development as a postconviction remedy. Part III responds to the Report's complaints regarding current habeas corpus practice and refutes contentions that the habeas jurisdiction overburdens federal dockets …

Remembering The 'Old World' Of Criminal Procedure: A Reply To Professor Grano, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I graduated from high school in 1961, the "old world" of criminal procedure still existed, albeit in its waning days; when I graduated from law school in 1968, circa the time most of today's first-year law students were arriving on the scene, the "new world" had fully dislodged the old. Indeed, the force of the new world's revolutionary impetus already had crested. Some of the change that the criminal procedure revolution effected was for the better, but much of it, at least as some of us see it, was decidedly for the worse. My students, however, cannot make the …

Rethinking Custodial Interrogation, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article attempts to resurrect a concept crucial to the Supreme Court lexicon. It is not, however, a police manual. This Article concerns itself solely with questions surrounding the admissibility of confessions, and in so doing, attempts to show that only a reconsideration of custodial interrogation can restore the "significant deprivations" language to the status granted it in Miranda v. Arizona.

Court-Appointed Attorneys: Old Problems And New Solutions, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

"Reasonable Particularity" In Indictments Against Child Abusers, John J. Connolly

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Step Towards Fairness In Capital Litigation: Missouri Resource Center, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

The Law And Psychology Of Jury Instructions, J. Alexander Tanford

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amending The Oversight: Legislative Drafting And The Cable Act, Michael I. Meyerson

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Conceptual, Practical, And Political Guide To Rico Reform, Gerard E. Lynch

Faculty Scholarship

RICO is nearing its twentieth birthday, but it may not be a happy one. In fact, 'tis the season for critics of RICO to be, if not jolly, at least highly active. A House subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee have held hearings on RICO reform, the popular and business press has published numerous debates and criticisms involving fairly arcane points of civil and criminal law, scholars and lawyers have filled law reviews and legal newspapers with articles often critical of the statute, and the pressure has been building for statutory changes.

As the pressure for change has intensified, and …

Retroactivity And The Great Writ: How Congress Should Respond To Teague V. Lane, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Miracle Cure For Sentencing Disparity, Kathryn A. Walton

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.