Law Commons^™

Barnes V. Thompson 58 F.3d 971 (4th Cir. 1995) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Fitzgerald V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 299, 455 S.E.2d 506 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Mandatory Arrest Law: Police Reaction, Kevin Walsh

Pace Law Review

The mandatory arrest requirement in certain domestic violence situations is unique, due to the fact that no other class of offense requires arrest. The Criminal Procedure Law states that a police officer "may arrest" for all other classes of offenses. The new subdivision states that a police officer "shall arrest a person, and shall not attempt to reconcile the parties or mediate .... ." The use of the word "shall," in contrast to "may," indicates obligation or necessity. Why has this class of offenses been singled out for mandatory arrest? What factors brought this mandatory arrest law about?

Royal V. Commonwealth 250 Va. 110, 458 S.E.2d 575 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Virginia's New State Habeas: What Every Attorney Needs To Know, Gregory J. Weinig

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

A Decade Of Strickland's Tin Horn: Doctrinal And Practical Undermining Of The Right To Counsel, William S. Geimer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.

Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …

The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.

Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …

Criminal Procedure—The Clear Meaning Of Ambiguity. Davis V. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350 (1994)., Melissa Beard Glover

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Andrea Wilson

Mercer Law Review

In 1984, Congress mandated the creation of the United States Sentencing Commission composed of presidential appointees to create guidelines for a comprehensive sentencing scheme. As a result, the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") have been in effect since November 1, 1987, and apply to all federal criminal offenses committed since that date.

In principle, guideline sentencing should be simple. Courts should arrive at a sentencing range using calculations that first consider the criminal conduct being sentenced and then the criminal history of the offender. In practice, however, the guidelines are difficult to understand, impossible to apply evenhandedly, and frequently difficult …

Reflections On O.J. And The Gas Chamber, J. Michael Echevarria

San Diego Law Review

This Article discusses the traditional justifications advanced in support of the death penalty and compares them with current empirical data. The justifications are then applied to the O.J. Simpson case. The Article examines the data and reasons for the incidence of error in convicting innocent defendants in capital cases. The type of representation available to O.J. Simpson is contrasted with the quality of representation accorded to most capital defendants. After comparing the empirical data with the ideological justifications for capital punishment, the Author concludes that capital punishment is not necessary.

Improving Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution by Craig M. Bradley

Chopping Miranda Down To Size, Michael Chertoff

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Confessions, Truth, and the Law by Joseph D. Grano

The Rhetoric Of Innocence, William S. Laufer

Washington Law Review

This Article promotes the serious consideration of innocence in the criminal process, and gives meaning to the rhetoric surrounding the presumption of innocence. The first part illustrates the near irrelevance of innocence in an accusatorial system of justice where burdens of proof require proof of guilt The second and third parts of the Article discuss the meaning of the presumption of innocence. It is argued that legislatures and courts have ignored the tension between the conflicting goals of the criminal process by thinking of the presumption of innocence as a legal presumption. As a legal presumption, its effects are indistinguishable …

Exceptional Sentencing In Washington After State V. Freitag: Pushing The Limits Of The Sentencing Reform Act, Lisa K. Strom

Washington Law Review

In 1981 the Washington state legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) with the intent of reducing disparity in sentencing through the implementation of presumptive sentencing ranges. The SRA authorizes judges to depart from the presumptive range by imposing an exceptional sentence if appropriate mitigating or aggravating factors exist. Since 1981, virtually all courts have determined a factor's appropriateness by considering its relation to the factual nature of the crime itself. In State v. Freitag, however, the Washington Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court may rely on factors which do not directly relate to the nature …

A Disparity That Is Worlds Apart: The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Treatment Of Crack Cocaine And Powder Cocaine, Kimberley Mache Maxwell

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Balance Between Fighting Street Gangs And Adhering To The Constitution In Southern California, D. Cameron Beck, Jr.

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'

Suggestions For Circuit Court Review Of Local Procedures, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Williams V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 528,450 S.E.2d 365 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Strickler V. Murray 249 Va. 120, 452 S.E.2d 648 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Not Holding The Balance Nice, Clear And True: The Right To An Impartial Judge, John M. Delprete

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Schlup V. Delo 115 S. Ct. 851 (1995) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Stockton V. Murray 41 F.3d 920 (4th Cir. 1994) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Weeks V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 460, 450 S.E.2d 379 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Cardwell V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 501, 450 S.E.2d 146 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Wilson V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 95, 452 S.E.2d 669 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Beating A Potential Deathtrap: How To Preserve The Appellate Record For Federal Review And Avoid Virginia's Procedural Default, Kristopher E. Ahrend

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Leaving No Stone Unturned: Alternative Methods Of Discovery In Capital Cases, Timothy B. Heavner

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Burket V. Commonwealth: Don't Put All Your Defense Eggs In The Suppression Basket, Jody M. Bieber

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.