Law Commons^™

Exclusionary Rule Need Not Be Applied In Federal Habeas Reviews Of State Convictions, Jann Johnson

Mercer Law Review

In Stone v. Powell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a state "has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth-Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas-corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at trial."

Respondent Powell was convicted of second-degree murder in a California state court. A police officer had found the murder weapon on Powell during a search incident to his arrest for violation of a vagrancy ordinance, and the officer's testimony was admitted at trial over Powell's objection. Powell …

Consent Of 'Unfit' Parents Needed For Adoption—Unless Their Rights Are First Terminated, Susan W. Gibson

Mercer Law Review

In Johnson v. Eidson, the Georgia Supreme Court held that "moral unfitness" of natural parents is not an exception to the statutory prerequisite that natural parents consent to their children's adoption.

The maternal grandparents of Lewis and Jimmy Lynn Johnson had petitioned the court to allow them to adopt their grandchildren without the consent of the natural parents. Their petition was based on (1) their temporary custody of the children, which was granted by a juvenile court after the children had been found in a condition of neglect; (2) abandonment by the natural parents; and (3) the unfit and …

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Does Not Bar Seizure Of Personal Papers, Ross Mccloy

Mercer Law Review

In Andresen v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to the forcible seizure, with valid search warrants, of an attorney's incriminatory personal business records from his office. Petitioner Andresen, a sole practitioner specializing in real estate settlements, came under the scrutiny of a Bi-County Fraud Unit investigating real estate settlement activities in the Washington, D.C., area. The investigation revealed that Andresen, while acting as settlement attorney, had defrauded the purchaser by knowingly concealing two existing liens on the property. The investigators concluded that there was probable cause to believe …

Regulating Location Of 'Adult Theaters' On Basis Of Film Content Is Constitutional, Alan Parker Layne

Mercer Law Review

In Young v. American Mini Theaters, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5- 4 decision, upheld a Detroit zoning ordinance that regulated the location of theaters exhibiting adult films. The Court rejected due-process and equal-protection arguments and concluded that First-Amendment principles were not offended even though the classification was based upon the content of the films.

On November 2, 1972, Detroit amended an "Anti Skid Row" ordinance enacted approximately ten years earlier.2 The 1972 amendment prohibited the location of "adult theaters" within 1,000 feet of any two other regulated uses.' Theaters exhibiting material that was "distinguished or characterized by …