Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Right to counsel (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- 1798 Alien Act (1)
- AEDPA (1)
- Alexander Addison (1)
-
- Amendments (1)
- American Revolution (1)
- American history (1)
- Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Choice of means doctrine (1)
- Civil War (1)
- Curriculum (1)
- Forfeiture doctrine (1)
- Forfeiture of right to counsel (1)
- Founding (1)
- High school (1)
- Historiography (1)
- History (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- John Marshall (1)
- Judicial impeachment (1)
- Minimum wage (1)
- Miranda (1)
- Miranda rights (1)
- Montejo (1)
- Necessary and proper clause (1)
- No contact rule (1)
- Ohio (1)
- Ohio constitution (1)
- Ohio minimum wage law (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst
Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst
Cleveland State Law Review
The author contends that the doctrine of forfeiture of the right to assistance of counsel as a sanction for misconduct by a defendant towards the court or his counsel has no constitutional support in the principles that have defined the Sixth Amendment, is arbitrary in its application within the judicial system, and has become a refuge for courts, which have inadequately complied with established principles to protect fundamental rights.
Our Forgotten Founders: Reconstruction, Public Education, And Constitutional Heroism, Tom Donnelly
Our Forgotten Founders: Reconstruction, Public Education, And Constitutional Heroism, Tom Donnelly
Cleveland State Law Review
In this Article, I consider the constitutional stories we tell our schoolchildren about the Founding and Reconstruction. To that end, I analyze the relevant sections of our leading high school history textbooks, focusing particularly on the consensus narratives and constitutional heroes that emerge in these accounts. This analysis is vital to more fully understanding the background assumptions that elite lawyers, political leaders, and the wider public bring to bear when they consider the meaning of the Constitution.
Intended And Unintended Consequences: The 2006 Fair Minimum Wage Amendment Of The Ohio Constitution , Jason R. Bristol, Ashley A. Weaver, Thomas A. Downie
Intended And Unintended Consequences: The 2006 Fair Minimum Wage Amendment Of The Ohio Constitution , Jason R. Bristol, Ashley A. Weaver, Thomas A. Downie
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article first provides a brief overview of federal and Ohio minimum wage law. The Article then examines the text of the 2006 Amendment. The third section delves into the provisions of HB 690 and the differences between HB 690 and the Amendment. The final section explores litigation issues arising from these differences.
Originalism, John Marshall, And The Necessary And Proper Clause: Resurrecting The Jurisprudence Of Alexander Addison, Patrick J. Charles
Originalism, John Marshall, And The Necessary And Proper Clause: Resurrecting The Jurisprudence Of Alexander Addison, Patrick J. Charles
Cleveland State Law Review
However, to give Marshall full credit for the “choice of means” doctrine is unfair, he was not the first to lay claim to the doctrine when interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause. Indeed, the philosophical and legal influences of John Marshall have been the speculation of scholarly discourse for some time. For instance, many legal commentators and historians have attributed the influence of Marshall's opinions to being a strong Federalist because many of his opinions echo the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution. However, Marshall's opinions were also influenced by factors that sometimes conflicted with Federalist thought. This Article does not …
The Police-Prosecutor Relationship And The No-Contact Rule: Conflicting Incentives After Montejo V. Louisiana And Maryland V. Shatzer, Caleb Mason
Cleveland State Law Review
In this paper, I examine the consequences of the divergence of ethical and constitutional rules, with particular attention to the institutional dynamics of criminal investigation and specifically the relationship between police and prosecutors. This relationship is of crucial importance because Montejo and Shatzer create a legal regime in which non-lawyer agents and officers may initiate investigative contact with represented defendants in circumstances in which prosecutors are absolutely forbidden to do so. This situation undermines the ability of prosecutors to effectively supervise the investigation of their cases and puts them in an untenable position when advising agents on the law.