Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Paul Marcus
No abstract provided.
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
Paul Marcus
The United States Constitution makes provision for criminal defendants to be represented by counsel. In the federal jurisdiction this principle was vigorously applied, even to indigent persons, very early in the Twentieth Century. The United States Supreme Court, however, was reluctant to impose this requirement on the states except in cases of unusual circumstances where the absence of counsel would have affected the basic fairness of the trial. Finally, in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the right to counsel applies in both federal and state cases. For the past twenty years, federal and state …
The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz
The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz
Adam M. Gershowitz
In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay’s request for appointed counsel. Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role With Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Cases, Paul Marcus
The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role With Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Cases, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Luis V. United States: Asset Forfeiture Butts Heads With The Sixth Amendment, Jordan Glassberg
Luis V. United States: Asset Forfeiture Butts Heads With The Sixth Amendment, Jordan Glassberg
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In recent years, the federal government has vastly increased its use of asset forfeiture, the seizure of property connected to illegal activities. As authorized under federal law, the government is also able to restrain assets prior to trial when the government belives those assets will ultimately be found to be forfeitable. This pretrial restraint potentially implicates the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel for criminal defendants. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Luis v. United States, the Court will address the question of whether a pretrial restraint of assets which are not traceable to any illegal activity is permissible …
Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan
Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan
Faculty Scholarship
A significant and growing portion of the U.S. population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. The …
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz
The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz
Faculty Publications
In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay’s request for appointed counsel. Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
The United States Constitution makes provision for criminal defendants to be represented by counsel. In the federal jurisdiction this principle was vigorously applied, even to indigent persons, very early in the Twentieth Century. The United States Supreme Court, however, was reluctant to impose this requirement on the states except in cases of unusual circumstances where the absence of counsel would have affected the basic fairness of the trial. Finally, in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the right to counsel applies in both federal and state cases. For the past twenty years, federal and state …