Law Commons^™

Effects Of Corroboration Instructions In A Rape Case On Experimental Juries, Valerie P. Hans, Neil Brooks

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The rules of evidence have evolved, in the main, to protect the jury from being misled, prejudiced or confused by certain types of evidence which might be presented to it. The rules attempt to achieve this purpose by utilizing a number of techniques, which were fashioned by common law judges. First, evidence which gives rise to these dangers might be excluded from the jury's consideration altogether. Secondly, such evidence might have to be corroborated by other evidence before the jury is permitted to reach a verdict in the case. Thirdly, the judge might be compelled to instruct the jury that …

United States V. New York Telephone Company, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Bell V. Ohio, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Lockett V. Ohio, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Ceccolini, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Ballew V. Georgia, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Disposition Process Under The Juveniles Justice Standards Project, Stanley Z. Fisher

Faculty Scholarship

The Juvenile Justice Standards Project volumes were publicly discussed for months prior to their publication. Unavoidably, much of the discussion was based upon rumor regarding their contents. In that context, critics charged that the proposed Standards would "destroy the nation's juvenile court system and replace it with a 'junior criminal system' "1 and claimed that the Standards substitute the philosophy of "just deserts" for the traditional rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice.' The news media described the Standards on disposition of delinquents as designed to "fit the penalty to the crime, no matter what the age of the perpetrator. '3 I …

The Standards' Recommendations On Dispositions: A Panel Discussion Panel Discussion, Stanley Z. Fisher

Faculty Scholarship

ROFESSOR STANLEY FISHER, MODERATOR: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you all here. Of all of the volumes of the Juvenile Justice Standards Project, I suppose the most controversial are those dealing with the disposition stage. They have elicited a good deal of critical comment, even though they haven't yet been published, and many of the comments and criticisms have apparently been on the basis of speculation and rumor as to what the Standards actually say. We have with us tonight to discuss these Standards two persons who have a great deal of expertise in this field. The first, on …

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

I start in Section I of this Article with an examination of the first major theme of the criminal procedure decisions of the Warren Court, the selective incorporation of Bill of Rights' guarantees into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. My conclusion is that the selective incorporation principle, which provided the doctrinal basis for many of the "liberal" decisions of the Warren Court, remains firmly established today under the Burger Court. Section II of the Article then analyzes the theme of equality and the role it played in Warren Court decisions in the criminal procedure area. It is …

Bane Of American Forfeiture Law—Banished At Last?, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

This article refutes the claimed historical bases for criminal law in rem forfeiture.

Survey Of Criminal Procedure — Alternative Dispositions Of Defendants, Charles Shafer

All Faculty Scholarship

The criminal justice system provides various alternatives for the disposition of criminal defendants. Three of these alternatives, pretrial intervention, drug treatment, and probation, were dealt with in recent New Jersey Supreme Court decisions. The court examined the substantive criteria and procedures used in assigning each disposition and focused primarily on the desire to provide rehabilitative opportunities for each defendant. This note will examine those decisions and the implications of the court's concentration on the goal of rehabilitation.

Competency To Stand Trial In Federal Courts: Conceptual And Constitutional Problems, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Brewer V. Williams--A Hard Look At A Discomfiting Record, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In recent decades, few matters have split the Supreme Court, troubled the legal profession, and agitated the public as much as the police interrogation-confession cases. The recent case of Brewer v. Williams3 is as provocative as any, because the Supreme Court there revdrsed the defendant's conviction for the "savage murder of a small child" even though no Justice denied his guilt,4 he was warned of his rights no fewer than five times, 5 and any "interrogation" that might have occurred seemed quite mild.6

Improving Police Discretion: Rationality In Handling Public Inebriates, David Aaronson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Fred E. Inbau: 'The Importance Of Being Guilty', Yale Kamisar

Articles

As fate would have it, Fred Inbau graduated from law school in 1932, the very year that, "for practical purposes the modern law of constitutional criminal procedure [began], with the decision in the great case of Powell v. Alabama."1 In "the 'stone age' of American criminal procedure,"2 Inbau began his long fight to shape or to retain rules that "make sense in the light of a policeman's task,"3 more aware than most that so long as the rules do so, "we will be in a stronger position to insist that [the officer] obey them."4

Improving Police Discretion: Rationality In Handling Public Inebriates, David Aaronson , C. Dienes, Michael Musheno

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This two-part article reports on the findings of the "prescriptive" phase of the American University Law School's Project on Public Inebriation.' First, we provide a framework or model designed to contribute to efforts to improve the rationality of police discretion and the quality of discretionary justice. Second, we seek to increase understanding of, and provide the basis for improving, the intake process whereby public inebriates are delivered to designated facilities-jails, detoxification centers, etc.-in criminal and decriminalized jurisdictions. While the article focuses on the discretionary power of police officers to remove street inebriates, it should increase awareness of problems of decriminalizing …

Mondale On Mapp, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Any judicial reversal of the Mapp rule threatens to have just the opposite effect. Law enforcement officials are likely to treat a decision that illegally obtained evidence may be admitted into state criminal trials as though that were a practical suspension of the constitutional rules as to lawful arrest, search, and seizure. They are likely to feel that once again "the judiciary is okaying it." With the smell of revelations of FBI "black-bag jobs" and intelligence agency abuses still in the air, is this how we want the Court to contribute to the atmosphere of police practices as we enter …

The Twilight Of Welfare Criminology, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure In Alaska: A Comprehensive Review, Jeff M. Feldman

Articles

In the eighteen years since Alaska achieved statehood, fifty-two cases involving issues of search and seizure have reached the Alaska Supreme Court. This article will analyze these cases with an eyetowards outlining the law of search and seizure in Alaska, isolating those areas in which the Alaska Supreme Court has departed from prevailing search and seizure doctrine, and using past decisions to predict the probable outcomes to search and seizure issues still unresolved in Alaska.

Voir Dire Of Jurors: Constitutional Limits To The Right Of Inquiry Into Prejudice, Jeffrey M. Gaba

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Although the voir dire of jurors is one of the most significant mechanisms by which an impartial jury is secured, as a practical matter the right to examine prospective jurors is not unlimited. Vested with great discretion, a trial judge may at some point constitutionally preclude inquiry into possible prejudice, but determining that point has not proved to be easy. In 1976, the Supreme Court in Ristaino v. Ross directly considered the constitutional limits to voir dire and provided a test which could serve as a guide to trial court administration of the process. The Court suggested that questioning about …

Beyond The Shut-Eyed Sentry: Toward A Theoretical View Of Corporate Misconduct And An Effective Legal Response, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Like hard cases, festering scandals make bad law. As public perceptions shift so that conduct once tolerated becomes seen as illicit, political pressures develop that can result in hastily improvised responses by the legal system to fill the newly perceived vacuum. This generalization is advanced to question neither the inalienable right of the public to be scandalized, nor the need for corporate reform, but to approach a highly problematic dilemma: hurried, moralistic responses to a perceived evil often prove not only ineffective, but even counterproductive. The serious student of complex organizations may recognize this assertion as a slightly altered variant …

The Attempt To Improve Criminal Defense Representation, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Improvement of criminal defense representation is one of the most critical problems that faces the criminal justice system. The problem is extensive; some attorneys are frequently ineffective and probably all attorneys are occasionally inadequate because of error, overwork, personal problems or ethical conflicts.

The defendant's only remedy against his attorney's ineffectiveness is through direct appeal or collateral post-conviction attack. This article discusses the reasons why courts cannot improve defense representation through these avenues of review. Deep disagreement among judges about the purpose of post-conviction review has crippled any attempt at improvement. The key unresolved question is whether the standard for …

Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

An Evidence Code: The American Experience, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor Paul Rothstien's opening address at the Conference on Current Trends in Evidence, Dalhousie University, 26th November 1976.

Rothstein discusses the American Evidence Code, the American experience with it, and compares it to a proposed Code that Canada is considering.

Craig V. Boren, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Brewer V. Williams, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. V. Green, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Castaneda V. Partida, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

"A Most Deplorable Paradox": Admitting Illegally Obtained Evidence In Georgia--Past, Present, And Future, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in Georgia criminal cases prior to 1961 and during the post-Mapp era and endeavors to assess the future admissibility of illegally seized evidence in Georgia under both federal and state law.