Law Commons^™

Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Sufficiency-Weight Distinction - A Matter Of Life Or Death, Michael Seward

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt

Scholarly Works

This article examines the effect of Oregon v. Kennedy on the Burger Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence in cases where government misconduct has interfered with the integrity of a first trial. The article proposes the complete elimination of current distinctions between mistrial and appellate reversal cases for double jeopardy analysis, on the ground that those distinctions no longer have intellectual or practical support. Moreover, against the contention of the Court in Oregon v. Kennedy that any test for overreaching necessarily would be standardless, this article proposes the adoption of a "plain error" standard. Under this test, "plain" government error, engaged in …

The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that once the defendant raises a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim that turns on a question of fact, the government should have the burden of proving that the two crimes charged are actually different. Part I traces the development of the law and the major factors behind recent federal court scrutiny of the traditional rule. Part II argues that constitutional considerations require courts to shift the burden of proof to the government, not only when practical considerations suggest the shift, but in all cases turning on questions of fact. Finally, Part III reconciles this allocation with the well-established …

Schall V. Martin, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

James V. Kentucky, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Press-Enterprise Co. V. Superior Court Of California, Riverside County, Lewis F. Powell Jr

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Immediate Appeal From Counsel Disqualification In Criminal Cases, Lee I. Sherman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Parole Board: What Liability To Victims?, Keith Jobson

Dalhousie Law Journal

What is the legal position of a victim of crime who is assaulted and severely injured by a person on parole release? The victim, of course, has a right to sue his or her assailant personally in tort for damages, but does the victim have a right to sue the prison and parole agencies for negligence in releasing or in supervising the offender? The victim's right to recovery against the authorities requires an examination of the right to damages in an action in negligence under the common law, as well as consideration of a possible remedy under the Charter of …

Criminal Venue In The Federal Courts: The Obstruction Of Justice Puzzle, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Courts have struggled to determine venue for cases involving obstruction of justice with similarly inconsistent results. The circuits have divided over where to lay venue in prosecutions for obstruction of justice when the defendant allegedly acted in one judicial district to obstruct a proceeding that was pending in another. This Note argues that formalistic analysis, which has led courts to set venue in the district of the affected trial, should be rejected in favor of a more policy-oriented approach. Part I demonstrates that a formalistic statutory analysis that closely inspects either legislative history or the language of the statute ultimately …

Finding An Optimum Legal Policy Level: The Undesirability Of Doing Too Much Or Too Little In The Law, Stuart S. Nagel

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Convicting Or Confining? Alternative Directions In Insanity Law Reform: Guilty But Mentally Ill Versus New Rules For Release Of Insanity Acquittees, Donald H. Hermann

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limitations On Postarrest, Prehearing Detention

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pretrial Bail: A Deprivation Of Liberty Or Property With Due Process Of Law

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy: A Systematic Method For Evaluating Evidentiary Sufficiency And Weight Of The Evidence

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Miranda Warnings—Waiver Of Right To Counsel At Polygraph Test, Scott J. Lancaster

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Hinckley, Jr. And The Insanity Defense: The Public's Verdict, Valerie P. Hans, Dan Slater

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Public furor over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. already has stimulated legal changes in the insanity defense. This study documents more systematically the dimensions of negative public opinion concerning the Hinckley verdict. A survey of Delaware residents shortly after the trial's conclusion indicated that the verdict was perceived as unfair, Hinckley was viewed as not insane, the psychiatrists' testimony at the trial was not trusted, and the vast majority thought that the insanity defense was a loophole. However, survey respondents were unable to define the legal test for insanity and …

Evidence In Capital Cases, John Kaplan

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Vetting: The Jury Under Attack, Peter Duff, Mark Findlay

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The English jury has recently been undergoing various alterations. These changes have their roots in assumptions, often not clearly identified, about the nature and purpose of the jury within the criminal justice system. Once the purpose and ideals of the jury system are identified, and there may be arguments about what they are,' it becomes apparent that there may be a conflict about how they should be put into practice. The state and its agencies may take one view whilst others may differ. An example of one such conflict is the controversy over the newly discovered practice of 'jury vetting'.

"Knock, Knock" Is No Joke: Announcement Rules For Business Premises, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the courts should reject a home-business distinction in the application of announcement requirements. The Note concludes that announcement rules should apply whenever their underlying policies are served. This approach would apply announcement requirements to closed and occupied business premises.

Part I examines the arguments offered by some courts for a restrictive interpretation of announcement protections in the business context. Part I suggests that these arguments are unpersuasive and that the courts' application of announcement rules should correspond to the policies behind them. Part II argues that the policy justifications for announcement are served in the business …

Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure Requirements As Applied To Sniffing Investigations By Police Dogs: People V. Mayberry, Steven M. Bradford

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Good Faith, The Exclusionary Remedy, And Rule-Oriented Adjudication In The Criminal Process, Gerald G. Ashdown

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government Compensation For The Costs Of Producting Subpoenaed Documents: A Proposal For Legislative Reform, Norman Gross

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Current statutory and case law provide for the compensation of select categories of persons and entities that provide evidence to the federal government. This compensation scheme is inequitable insofar as it treats similarly situated persons and entities dissimilarly. This Note advocates the adoption of a blanket statutory provision to compensate all third party custodians for incurred costs in producing documents in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued on behalf of a federal authority. Part I describes the current federal reimbursement scheme. Part II examines the inequities that the current statutory scheme imposes upon similarly situated entities and argues for …

Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note approves of efforts to avoid hung juries by giving lesser included offense instructions but opposes those instructions that restrict juror decisions and coerce minority jurors. Rather, this Note offers a lesser included offense instruction that promotes flexibility and jury compromise without undermining the deliberative process. Part I describes the problem of hung juries and how courts have tried to prevent them with restrictive lesser included offense instructions. Part II analyzes the coercive impact of restrictive lesser included offense instructions and concludes that an instruction conditioning deliberations upon individual juror disagreement better promotes compromises on the merits while reducing …

Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when lesser included offense instructions are available under state law but were not given. Part I demonstrates that granting such review conforms to the modern jurisdictional scope of federal collateral review because failure to give the instructions undermines the fact-finding function of juries and is therefore unconstitutional. Part II analyzes the proper standard of review and determines that the federal interest in protecting the reliability of the fact-finding process should prevail over any conflicting state interest in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions. Part II …

In Defense Of The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule—A Reply To Attorney General Smith, John Wesley Hall Jr.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Supreme Court Defines Scope Of Automobile Exception To Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement, Michael Schneider

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Instructions, John M. Purcell

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.