Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Law (6)
- Criminal Penalties (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Sentencing (2)
- Daubert (1)
-
- Due Process (1)
- FAMU College of Law (1)
- False Statements (1)
- Federal Magistrate Act (1)
- Federal district court (1)
- Florida A&M University College of Law (1)
- Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal (1)
- Folk psychology (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Herman Raddatz (1)
- Intent (1)
- Law Day (1)
- Magistrate (1)
- Motion to suppress (1)
- Paranormal (1)
- Racial Inequality (1)
- U.S. v. Raddatz (1)
- Warrant Requirement (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Lie To Me: Examining Specific Intent Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1035
Lie To Me: Examining Specific Intent Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1035
Florida A & M University Law Review
One court notes that the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has previously not found specific intent to be required under similar language within Section 1001.9 While there are many similarities between Sections 1001 and 1035, there are salient differences. Notwithstanding the differences, this Article argues that Sections 1001 and 1035 should be interpreted without “intent to deceive” and rather be interpreted as a strict liability offense. This argument began with Part I, which provided a brief introduction regarding specific intent under Sections 1001 and 1035. Part II examines the purpose of criminalizing false statements, which identifies why the …
A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester
A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the "warrant requirement," one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. The …
From Jones To Jones: Fifteen Years Of Incoherence In The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin Priester
From Jones To Jones: Fifteen Years Of Incoherence In The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
For over 15 years, the United States Supreme Court has struggled to define the constitutional constraints upon a ubiquitous practice in contemporary American criminal justice: the exercise of factfinding authority by sentencing judges in the course of determining the specific punishment to be imposed upon an individual convicted of a criminal offense. While the Court has permitted much sentencing factfinding to continue unabated, its decisions have identified certain scenarios in which an offender's constitutional rights are violated when a fact found at sentencing creates particular impacts on the punishment. Unfortunately, from the beginning this new constitutional doctrine in criminal procedure …
Wrongful Confictions And Due Process Violations, Cheryl Page
Wrongful Confictions And Due Process Violations, Cheryl Page
Journal Publications
This analytical essay looks at the myriad of ways innocent people are wrongfully convicted and how the criminal justice system fails to truly reach a fair and equitable result. The article looks at how at the initial stages of a criminal proceeding, a defendant can be prejudiced to the point of sufficient harm to his chances at being given a fair and impartial judicial proceeding. This article examines how fatal mistakes can be made and reveals that there can be flaws in the science of DNA testing, including fraud, criminologist bias, improper laboratory procedures, and human error. This article seeks …
Five Answers And Three Questions After United States V. Jones (2012), The Fourth Amendment Gps Case, Benjamin Priester
Five Answers And Three Questions After United States V. Jones (2012), The Fourth Amendment Gps Case, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Each year, the United States Supreme Court's docket includes a range of "high profile" cases that attract attention not merely from law professors and others with an acquired fascination with the Court, but also from a general audience of law students, lawyers, scholars and commentators on American politics and society, as well as, occasionally, the public at large. During the 2011 Term, one of those cases was "the GPS case," formally known as United States v. Jones.' Media coverage of the case spread far beyond the legal blogosphere to a wide variety of mainstream and popular sources, both in print …
Law Day Oral Argument Session 5th District Court Of Appeal, 2011, Honorable Kerry I. Evander, Presiding Judge, Honorable Jay P. Cohen, Honorable Bruce W. Jacobus
Law Day Oral Argument Session 5th District Court Of Appeal, 2011, Honorable Kerry I. Evander, Presiding Judge, Honorable Jay P. Cohen, Honorable Bruce W. Jacobus
Law Day Presentations
As part of the fifth annual Law Day event, a three judge panel from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is hearing appellate oral arguments in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. The first arguments are regarding evidence and jury instruction issues; the second case involves real property, mortgages and liens, as well as jurisdiction issues; the final arguments are regarding juror non-disclosure. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.
The Paranormal, Daubert, Dictionary Court, And A Futuristic Courtroom Drama, Joseph P. Baker
The Paranormal, Daubert, Dictionary Court, And A Futuristic Courtroom Drama, Joseph P. Baker
Florida A & M University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey,' a case that likely will have a significant impact on the administration of criminal justice in federal and state courts. The Court imposed a procedural limitation on prosecutors by restricting the types of facts that may be proven at sentencing rather than at trial. Specifically, the Court adopted a constitutional principle that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum" is an element of the offense of conviction. Under wellestablished constitutional doctrine, the Constitution's full procedural protections, especially the necessity of …
United States Of America V. Herman Raddatz, Preview Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Leroy Pernell
United States Of America V. Herman Raddatz, Preview Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Leroy Pernell
Journal Publications
No abstract provided.