Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge
Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge
Seattle University Law Review
The prohibition against double jeopardy is of ancient lineage in western civilization. In a ringing and scholarly dissent that rewards reflection, Justice Hugo Black said:
Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization. Its roots run deep into Greek and Roman times. Even in the Dark Ages, when so many other principles of justice were lost, the idea that one trial and one punishment were enough remained alive through the canon law and the teachings of the early Christian writers. By the thirteenth century …
Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack
Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack
Seattle University Law Review
This Article will attempt to distill from this confusion a meaningful double jeopardy policy, applicable to parallel civil and criminal proceedings, that takes into account the history of double jeopardy, recent changes in statutory law, and the contemporary chaotic state of parallel civil and criminal proceedings. Under current law, double jeopardy protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. This Article will show that the multiple punishments prong has little basis in law, other than reliance …
The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin
The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin
Seattle University Law Review
Over the past decade, the government has escalated its "war on drugs." Although the "war" has not decreased drug use or limited the availability of drugs on the street, the government continues to sacrifice the constitutional rights of its citizens in an effort to escalate the hostility. Since the "zero tolerance" policy of the Reagan Administration, the government has relied heavily on the forfeiture of property related to drug crimes as a tool to deter and punish the illegal distribution of drugs. The federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881, allows the government to seize any property used to facilitate …
The Court-Ordered Predisposition Evaluation Under Washington's Juvenile Justice Act: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?—Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40, Judith H. Ramseyer
The Court-Ordered Predisposition Evaluation Under Washington's Juvenile Justice Act: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?—Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40, Judith H. Ramseyer
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment analyzes the significance of the principles animating the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by first looking at the purposes of Washington’s Juvenile Justice Act; second, by examining the status of the privilege against self-incrimination during sentencing; and third, by applying the values protected by the privilege to the use of predisposition psychological evaluations in Washington juvenile courts.
Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States V. Leon And The Courts Of Washington—Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts?, Catherine Cruikshank
Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States V. Leon And The Courts Of Washington—Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts?, Catherine Cruikshank
Seattle University Law Review
This Note will review briefly the history of the exclusionary rule under fourth amendment jurisprudence, with special emphasis given to the purposes the rule has traditionally been thought to serve. The significance of the Leon decision then will be examined in light of the emergence in Washington of an interpretation of article I, section 7 that diverges from the Supreme Court's interpretations of the fourth amendment. This Note will conclude by discussing how article I, section 7 continues to embody the several purposes traditionally served by the exclusionary rule.