Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Freeing Females From Toplessness Bans: A Strict Scrutiny Analysis, Colleen Marron
Freeing Females From Toplessness Bans: A Strict Scrutiny Analysis, Colleen Marron
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Males may exhibit their bare chests on outdoor public property their entire lives. In many locations, this fundamental right to bodily autonomy afforded to men is denied to women. This Comment examines the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in conjunction with the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and focuses on the regulations forbidding female breast exposure. The assumption that female breasts require coverage due to their provocative nature normalizes and entrenches problematic issues, particularly the objectification of women, into law. The fundamental right to bodily autonomy requires protection over arbitrary and capricious social norms. This Comment stresses courts …
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …