Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Rico And The Predicate Offenses: An Analysis Of Double Jeopardy And Verdict Consistency Problems, Karen J. Ciupak Dec 1982

Rico And The Predicate Offenses: An Analysis Of Double Jeopardy And Verdict Consistency Problems, Karen J. Ciupak

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy And Prosecutorial Appeal Of Sentences: Di Francesco, Bullington, And The Criminal Code Reform Act Of 1981, Ronald P. O'Hanley, Iii Apr 1982

Double Jeopardy And Prosecutorial Appeal Of Sentences: Di Francesco, Bullington, And The Criminal Code Reform Act Of 1981, Ronald P. O'Hanley, Iii

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development first traces the evolution of the double jeopardy doctrine. The Recent Development then focuses on the recent sentence modification cases as well as the proposed revisions to the Federal Criminal Code. Finally, this Recent Development attempts to develop a coherent double jeopardy rationale and concludes that, under this proposed rationale, unilateral government appeal of sentences is unconstitutional.


Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review Apr 1982

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 …


Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal Jan 1982

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.


On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel Jan 1982

On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Everyone recognizes that the laws governing criminal procedure vary somewhat from state to state. There is often a tendency, however, to underestimate the degree of diversity that exists. Even some of the most experienced practitioners believe that aside from variations on some minor matters, such as the number of peremptory challenges granted, and variation on a few major items, such as the use of the grand jury, the basic legal standards governing most procedures are approximately the same in a large majority of states. I have seen varied evidence of this misconception in practitioner discussions of law reform proposals, particularly …


Sate Ex Rel. Watson V. Ferguson: Double Jeopardy And The Same Transaction Test, David W. Frame Jan 1982

Sate Ex Rel. Watson V. Ferguson: Double Jeopardy And The Same Transaction Test, David W. Frame

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.


Multiple Convictions Statute In Ohio: Has It Achieved Its Intended Result, Dale A. Nowak, Jeffrey A. Key Jan 1982

Multiple Convictions Statute In Ohio: Has It Achieved Its Intended Result, Dale A. Nowak, Jeffrey A. Key

Cleveland State Law Review

The Ohio Allied Offense Statute is a codification of the common law doctrine of merger and is the Ohio legislature's attempt to insulate criminal defendants from harsh and absurd punishment. This Article discusses the relationship of certain constitutional guarantees against multiple punishments to the Allied Offense Statute and the multiple punishment controversy in Ohio.