Law Commons^™

The Ambiguity Of Accountability: Deaths In Custody, And The Regulation Of Police Power, Mark Findlay

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Policing is power. Police authority relies on transactions or relationships of power and influence. The nature of that authority depends on, and takes its form from specific environments of opportunity. Opportunity is, in turn, designated by the aspirations for such relationships, and structures and processes at work towards their regulation. Police authority can be confirmed either legitimately or illegitimately, depending on its context. Essential to the operation of police authority are the "boundaries of permission" which designate the dominion of police power. A principal regulator of police authority, and therefore an important mechanism whereby boundaries of permission are determined, is …

Visions Of Habeas, David Mccord

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—Commentary That Binds: The Increased Power Of The United States Sentencing Commission In Light Of Stinson V. United States, 113 S. Ct. 1913 (1993), Todd L. Newton

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Testing Penry And Its Progeny , Deborah W. Denno

Faculty Scholarship

In Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court held that the Texas death penalty statute was applied unconstitutionally because the trial court gave no instructions allowing the jury to “consider and give effect to” the defendant's mitigating evidence of organic brain damage, moderate retardation, and disadvantaged background. The Court considered these mitigating factors relevant because of society's steadfast belief in the lesser culpability of defendants whose criminal acts are due to a disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental disorders. The jury must have full consideration of such evidence in order to give its “reasoned moral response” to the …

True Blue? Whether Police Should Be Allowed To Use Trickery And Deception To Extract Confessions, Laure Hoffman Roppe

San Diego Law Review

This Comment addresses whether or not, and if so, to what extent, police should be allowed to use trickery and deception to extract confessions from criminal suspects. It surveys the deceitful interrogation tactics included in the term "trickery" and summarizes the psychology of confessions. Major developments in the law regarding coerced confessions are analyzed and the author explores the policy arguments for and against the use of deception in police interrogations. The author recommends the prohibition of specific forms of trickery and offers an analytical approach as to whether a confession is admissible.

Deference, Tolerance, And Numbers: A Response To Professor Wright's View Of The Sentencing Commission, Kevin Cole

San Diego Law Review

The United States Sentencing Commission promulgates the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which greatly constrain judicial discretion in choosing the sentence for federal crimes. One commentator, Professor Ronald Wright, has argued that the willingness of the courts and Congress to defer to a guideline promulgated by the Commission should depend on whether the Commission has justified the guideline by reference to empirical evidence. This Article explores the theoretical and practical difficulties of giving such effect to empirical justifications.

Prosecutors And Domestic Violence: Local Leadership Makes A Difference, Janet E. Findlater, Dawn Van Hoek

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Breard V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 68, 445 S.E.2d 670 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Right To Effective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel, Lissa Griffin

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, William S. Geimer

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mcfarland V. Scott 114 S. Ct. 2568 (1994) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Turner V. Williams 35 F.3d 872 (4th Cir. 1994) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mickens V. Commonwealth 247 Va. 395, 442 S.E.2d 678 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Chichester V. Commonwealth 448 S.E.2d 638 (Va. 1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

If At First You Don't Succeed: The Real And Potential Impact Of Simmons V. South Carolina In Virginia, Barbra Anna Pohl, Cameron P. Turner

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Jury, Phoebe A. Haddon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Eliminating Double Talk From The Law Of Double Jeopardy, Eli J. Richardson

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Factors For Reasonable Suspicion: When Black And Poor Means Stopped And Frisked, David A. Harris

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Words And Sentences: Penalty Enhancement For Hate Crimes, Shirley S. Abrahamson, Susan Craighead, Daniel N. Abrahamson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, And The Subsequent-Prosecution Dilemma, Elizabeth T. Lear

UF Law Faculty Publications

The choice to embrace a real-offense regime probably constitutes the single most controversial decision made by the Federal Sentencing Commission in drafting the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Real-offense sentencing bases punishment on a defendant's actual conduct as opposed to the offense of conviction. The Guidelines sweep a variety of factors into the sentencing inquiry, including criminal offenses for which no conviction has been obtained. Under the Guidelines, therefore, prosecutorial charging decisions and even verdicts of acquittal after jury trial may have little impact at sentencing.

Long before the adoption of the Guidelines, courts bent on rationalizing the real-offense regime devised …

A Town Hall Meeting On Three Strikes And You're Out, The Hon. William J. Cahill, Moderator

California Agencies

A community discussion of the new law, the initiative, alternatives to prison .

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence: A Response To Russell M. Coombs, Reforming New Jersey Evidence Law On Fresh Complaint Of Rape, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Felony-Murder Doctrine Through The Federal Looking Glass, Henry S. Noyes

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

New York's Loyalty To The Spirit Of "Miranda": Simply The Best For Twenty-Five Years, Lorraine J. Adler

Vanderbilt Law Review

The landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, recognized a defendant's right to be informed of the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, including the right to counsel. The Miranda Court realized that a suspect may feel compelled to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege while in official detention. The Court held that the police must read the now-familiar warnings to a subject in custodial interrogation before he can waive his rights. Therefore, the Court in Miranda chose to strike the balance between effective law enforcement and protecting a subject's constitutional rights at the point of informing the subject …

Law, Culture, And Harassment, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Challenging Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenges: Little V. United States, Suzanne Frare

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mihas V. United States, Jennifer Fox

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Herrera V. Collins: The Gateway Of Innocence For Death-Sentenced Prisoners Leads Nowhere, Vivian Berger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guilty Pleas, Meredith Kolsky Lewis

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.