Law Commons^™

Criminal Procedure—Finding Of Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Does Not Require A Unanimous Verdict, Thomas L. David

Buffalo Law Review

People v. DeCillis, 14 N.Y.2d 203, 250 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1964).

Criminal Procedure—Coram Nobis—Not Available Where Counsel Has Failed To File Timely Notice Of Appeal When Requested By Defendant, David Gerald Jay

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Kling, 19 A.D.2d 750, 242 N.Y.S.2d 977 (2d Dep't 1963) (one judge dissenting),3 aff'd mem., 14 N.Y.2d 571, 198 N.E.2d 46, 248 N.Y.S.2d 661 (1964), motion to amend remittitur granted, 14 N.Y.2d 687, 198 N.E.2d 913, 249 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1964), petition for cert. filed, Misc. Calendar, July 1, 1964 (No. 198); People v. Marchese, 19 A.D.2d 728,242 N.Y.S.2d 464 (2d Dep't 1963), aff'd mern., 14 N.Y.2d 695, 198 N.E.2d 916, 249 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1964), petition for cert. filed, Misc. Calendar, August 18, 1964 (No. 388).

Popular Misconceptions Regarding Police Interrogations Of Criminal Suspects, Fred E. Inbau

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Role Of A Trial Jury In Determining The Voluntariness Of A Confession, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has vigorously implemented the principle that criminal prosecution is an investigative, not an inquisitorial, process. Evidence of guilt must be obtained by methods free from physical or psychological coercion. Protections in the Bill of Rights against illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and trial without counsel have been extended to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Safeguards against the admissibility of coerced confessions into evidence have also been instituted. Because a confession practically determines the ultimate question of guilt, the critical standards for· admissibility are frequently challenged on appeal. …

Effectice Representation—An Evasive Substantive Notion Masquerading As Procedure, Kenneth O. Jarvi

Washington Law Review

Recent cases show an increasing judicial concern with the right to counsel for an indigent accused. This concern flows from the constitutional requirement of a fair trial for every accused, and has culminated with Gideon v. Wainright, establishing the right to counsel in the state courts in all cases. Concommitantly, a related concept of effective representation has acquired momentum. It dates from the language of Powell v. Alabama. This latter concept encompasses answers to the question of what amounts to competent and/or effective counsel. The answers to the question have proved to be delicate and shifting in emphasis from concern …

Five Years Under State V. Thompson Criminal Pretrial Discovery In Washington, Kenneth L. Schubert, Jr.

Washington Law Review

Shortly after its 1959 decision in State v. Thompson, the Washington Supreme Court was credited with having made substantial change in the availability of pretrial discovery in Washington criminal procedure. This comment seeks to determine the effect of State v. Thompson by surveying the law of pretrial discovery on two levels of the Washington judicial system. First, the comment analyzes the recent supreme court cases that followed State v. Thompson, emphasizing the policy reasons behind current Washington procedure. Then the comment discusses a survey of the state's trial judges, which was made in conjunction with this paper for the purpose …

Law And Tactics In Federal Criminal Cases, Edited By George W. Shadoan, David W. Mernitz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Executive And Judicial Banishment Compared

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Of Arrest In Virginia

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speedy Trial And Pre-Trial Incarceration

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discharge Of Hung Jury

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Derivative Evidence Under Mcnabb-Mallory

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unconstitutional Judicial Sentences

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presence Of Accused At Trial

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Scope Of Permissible Cross-Examination Of A Party Litigant Or Defendant In A Jury Trial In West Virginia, Lee Ames Luce

West Virginia Law Review

Two fundamental restrictions limit the permissible scope of the cross-examination of a party litigant or defendant in a jury trial. One is the evidentiary restriction limiting cross-examination to those matters discussed in chief, and the second is the constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The purpose of this note is to examine the development and application of these restrictions in West Virginia jurisprudence.

Criminal Law And Procedure -- 1963 Tennessee Survey, Robert E. Kendrick

Vanderbilt Law Review

1. Homicide. A number of years ago the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the common law principle that one is justified in taking life in defense of his habitation when actually or apparently necessary to repel an attempt by another to enter forcibly or violently under circumstances creating a reasonable apprehension that the assailant's design is imminently to commit a felony therein or to assault or offer personal violence or inflict personal injury on an inmate so that there are reasonable grounds for concluding that life is endangered or great bodily harm is threatened thereby.'

Flippen v. State, a homicide case, …

Criminal Law--Declaration Of Mistrial Because Of Absence Of Defendant, John Ralph Lukens

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Procedure-Transfer For Trial Under Rule 21(B), F. David Trickey

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, a Delaware corporation, was indicted in the Eastern District of Illinois for violations of the Sherman Act. Proceeding under Rule 21(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defendant moved to transfer the trial to the District of Minnesota, where its principal business offices were located. The parties stipulated that the alleged offenses occurred in both Illinois and Minnesota and submitted affidavits, briefs, and oral argument on the transfer motion to petitioner, the district court judge. While evaluating numerous other factors relevant to the transfer motion, the district court gave some weight to the contention of government counsel that …

Constitutional Law-Federal Criminal Procedure-Right To Counsel Under Section 2255 Of The Judicial Code, Gerald J. Laba

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner, seeking to attack a conviction for illegal possession of narcotics, was granted leave to sue in form a pauperis under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, but his request that counsel be appointed for him was denied. Petitioner's section 2255 motion to vacate judgment was denied. Petitioner then entered a second section 2255 petition alleging basically the same errors but adding that the court had erred in not appointing counsel for his first petition. The second motion was denied without a hearing on the ground that it was "the second or successive motion for similar relief .... " Petitioner appealed in …

Conflict Of Laws--Appointment Of A Valid Agent For Service Of Process, William Walter Smith

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Procedure-Subpoena Of Nonresident Citizen As Witness Before Grand Jury, Andre A. Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, a nonresident citizen of the United States, was subpoenaed by a federal district court to appear before a grand jury investigating alleged fraud in the procurement of government contracts. Defendant having failed to appear, the district court issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. On appeal from a judgment holding defendant in contempt, held, reversed, one judge dissenting in part. The power of a federal district court to subpoena a nonresident citizen is limited to the actual trial of a criminal action. United States v. Thompson, 319 F.2d …

Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in a civil proceeding for giving "don't remember" answers, after having been granted immunity from prosecution, to questions concerning his activities, asked during a grand jury investigation of an attempted homicide. For his refusal to testify, the defendant was given the maximum penalty provided for criminal contempt under the applicable statute. After paying the fine and serving the sentence, the defendant was brought before the same grand jury thirty-five days later and was asked the same questions. The defendant repeated the "don't remember" answers and was again fined and incarcerated. …

Criminal Justice, Robert F. Kennedy

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is now well settled that involuntary confessions must be excluded from evidence in all criminal trials in state courts. It has been difficult, however, to distinguish a voluntary confession from an involuntary one, because the term "involuntary" is not well defined. This lack of definition, which creates great problems for state trial and appellate courts in attempting to apply the rule to individual cases, has, in turn, stemmed from a lack of understanding of the reasons for excluding involuntary confessions. The United States Supreme Court has handed down thirty-four coerced confession cases, holding confessions admissible in some factual situations …

Reliable Informers And Corroboration

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Convict's Right To Speedy Trial On A Pending Indictment

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Next In Federal Criminal Rules?, Walter E. Hoffman

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Defendant's Vested Right In A Void Judgment

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Refusal Of A Blood Test As Suppression Of Evidence

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Procedure-Collateral Relief Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255- Discretion Of Sentencing Court To Dismiss Successive Application Without Hearing, Richard B. Rogers

Michigan Law Review

Prisoner, sentenced by a United States district court, filed two successive motions to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, which provides for a compulsory motion procedure for federal prisoners in lieu of habeas corpus. Under this section, a prisoner is required to petition the court which sentenced him in order to test the legality of his detention. The motion must be given a prompt hearing, "unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. .. " If a successive motion is filed for "similar relief" the …