Law Commons^™

Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick

Michigan Law Review

As presently construed, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. The states and the federal government may punish the commission of certain crimes with death, so long as the extreme penalty is not imposed on a mandatory basis and so long as the procedures used in imposing a death sentence meet constitutional scrutiny.

A demonstration that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenge in the manner described in a single case probably would be insufficient to support a constitutional challenge in the federal courts and in the vast majority of state courts. In these courts a prosecutor's use of the …

Excessive Sanctions For Governmental Misconduct In Criminal Cases, Richard A. Posner

Washington Law Review

The fourth amendment, as is well known, forbids unreasonable searches and seizures by government officers; if the government tries to introduce evidence in a criminal trial that was seized in violation of the fourth amendment, the defendant can get the evidence suppressed. If the evidence is vital to conviction, this means that the defendant will be acquitted simply because the evidence was obtained illegally. This is the famous exclusionary rule of the law of search and seizure. The exclusionary rule is one example of a sanction for governmental miconduct: evidence that may be essential to convicting a dangerous criminal is …

The Exclusionary Rule, Deterrence And Posner's Economic Analysis Of Law, Arval A. Morris

Washington Law Review

Judge Posner holds economic theory demonstrates that the fourth amendment's exclusionary rule and other judicially developed doctrines implementing the Constitution impose excessive sanctions for governmental misconduct in criminal cases. This Article, focusing on the exclusionary rule, aims to place his economic argument in historical context and to assess it.

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note reformulates the doctrine of prosecutorial vindictiveness in light of the distinction drawn in Goodwin between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions. Part I recounts the development of the vindictiveness concept, and argues that in extending the doctrine beyond the factual settings which moved the Supreme Court to fashion its original prophylactic rule, the circuit courts have seriously eroded an essential due process safeguard. Part II critically examines the distinction between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions relied upon in Goodwin. Developing the logical corollary of the Goodwin holding, this Part argues that just as the pretrial situation does not …

The Exclusionary Rule: An Examination Of The Case Law And The Present Posture Of The Florida Supreme Court, Michael Shaw Tammaro

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jones V. Barnes, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Solem V. Helm, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Judicial Control Of Prosecutorial Discretion In Pretrial Diversion Programs, William Helmer

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dimensions Of Seizure: The Concepts Of "Stop" And "Arrest", Richard A. Williamson

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Disclosure And Civil Use Of Immunized Testimony, Elizabeth J. Schwartz

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development examines the current conflict among the circuits. This study first explores the rationales under-lying use immunity and contrasts them with the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court for controlling judicial disclosure of grand jury testimony. Second, this Recent Development examines the analyses used by the federal courts in determining whether to release immunized grand jury testimony for civil use's and the effect of disclosure on a witness' claim of fifth amendment privilege.This study submits that in their effort to promote civil discovery,several courts have misconstrued the scope and effect of the disclosure power and have usurped the …

The Collateral Estoppel Effect Of Guilty Pleas In Section 1983 Actions

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Communication In The Courtroom: Jury Instructions, Michael J. Farrell

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Agency Access To Grand Jury Transcripts Under Rule 6 (E), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I examines the courts' current certainty-based perspective, and rejects this approach because it sacrifices important interests in civil law enforcement and judicial consistency for speculative and coincidental reductions in grand jury abuse. Part II defends the proposed standard by arguing that it comports with the language and intent of the rule while more effectively advancing the policy interests in civil law enforcement and grand jury secrecy.

Search And Seizure, William R. Wilson Jr.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recidivist Statutes—Application Of Proportionality And Overbreadth Doctrines To Repeat Offenders—Wanstreet V. Bordenkircher, 276 S.E.2d 205 (W. Va. 1981), Marc G. Wilhelm

Washington Law Review

In 1967 George Wanstreet was convicted of forging a forty-three dollar check and received a life sentence under West Virginia's recidivist statute. This statute, one of the two harshest in the nation, requires life imprisonment for persons convicted of three felonies. Wanstreet had been convicted in 1951 for forging an eighteen dollar check and in 1955 for arson of a barn valued at $490. He had been in prison more than ten years for the 1967 conviction when the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held, in Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, that his sentence violated the proportionality clause of the West …

The Death Penalty In Washington: An Historical Perspective, Leonie G. Hellwig

Washington Law Review

This Comment follows the evolution of Washington's capital punishment law through the 1981 legislation and analyzes the two cases that invalidated the 1977 death penalty statute. The Comment favors the reasoning behind the dissenting opinions of Martin and Frampton as more consistent with established principles of statutory construction. The Comment concludes with a discussion of Washington's new capital punishment legislation enacted in response to the supreme court's decisions.

Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …

Towards Neutral Principles In The Administration Of Criminal Justice: A Critique Of Supreme Court Decisions Sanctioning The Plea Bargaining Process, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

This article compares the Court's reasoning in plea bargaining cases with its reasoning in non-plea-bargaining cases that involve the same legal principles. It analyzes the Court's arguments for sustaining guilty pleas induced by fear of the death penalty or by promises of leniency, and for sanctioning the imposition of harsher penalties on those who reject prosecutional offers to plead and insist on a trial. Finally, it briefly addresses the contention that the system for the administration of criminal justice in the United States could not function if use of a sentencing differential to induce guilty pleas were prohibited.

Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court's post-conviction cases cannot be extended to cases involving jury acquittal and that federal reprosecution after state jury acquittal violates the double jeopardy clause. One can give meaning to the clause, Part Iexplains, only by reference to its underlying constitutional values.Part II suggests that these values, while possibly compatible with federal prosecution after a state conviction, cannot countenance reprosecution after a jury acquittal. Part III proposes that courts determine whether such reprosecution is appropriate by applying the Blockhurger same offense standard: Two offenses are the same unless each requires proof of …

Vii. Criminal Law & Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy serves three distinct purposes: (1) prohibition of a second prosecution after acquittal; (2) prohibition of a second prosecution after conviction; and (3) prohibition of multiple punishments for the same offense. This article addresses the problem of defining "the same offense," and specifically focuses on the application of the Blockburger test in light of Whalen v. United States.

Miranda And The Burger Court: Trends And Countertrends, David Sonenshein

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Foreword, James P. Carey

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Capital Punishment And Crimes Of Murder, Dorean M. Koenig

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Sentencing: The Case For Evidentiary Standards, Frank D. Giorno

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Sentencing Under The Federal Youth Corrections Act: When May A Youth Be Treated As An Adult?, Cynthia A. Kelly

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Past Arrests And Perceived Perjury As Sentencing Factors In Illinois, Valerie J. Fisher

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Current Developments In Corrections And The Lawyer's Role At Sentencing, Walter Dickey

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Criminal Sentencing Legislation Pending Before The Ninety-Seventh Congress, Timothy J. Frenzer

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.