Law Commons^™

The Death Penalty In The Twenty-First Century , Stephen B. Bright, Edward Chikofsky, Laurie Ekstrand, Harriet C. Ganson, Paul D. Kamenar, Robert E. Morin, William G. Otis, Jasmin Raskin, Ira P. Robbins, Diann Rust-Tierney, Charles F. Shilling, Andrew L. Sooner, Ronald J. Rabak, David V. Drehle, James Wootton

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Federal Rules In Sex Offense Cases, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This article from the November/December 1995 issue of the Maryland Bar Journal details the changes made to the Federal Rules of Evidence following the enactment of the 1994 Comprehensive Crime Bill. Questions raised by the new rules and the response of the Judicial Conference are also discussed.

The Death Penalty In The Twenty-First Century , Stephen B. Bright, Edward Chikofsky, Laurie Ekstrand, Harriet C. Ganson, Paul D. Kamenar, Robert E. Morin, William G. Otis, Jasmin Raskin, Ira P. Robbins, Diann Rust-Tierney, Charles F. Shilling, Andrew L. Sooner, Ronald J. Rabak, David V. Drehle, James Wootton

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recidivist Statutes As Arational Punishment, Markus Dirk Dubber

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences: Multiple Petty Offenses And The Sixth Amendment Right To Jury Trial, Jeff E. Butler

Michigan Law Review

In Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, the Supreme Court set forth the definitive standard for distinguishing petty offenses from serious crimes.7 The benchmark used by the Court is the maximum prison term assigned to each offense by the legislature. Where the penalty exceeds six months' imprisonment, the offense is serious enough to trigger the right to jury trial. Where the penalty is six months' imprisonment or less, there is a strong presumption that the offense is petty; therefore, a defendant accused of that offense has no Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.

This Note argues that a criminal …

The Georgia Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act Of 1995, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

On April 10, 1995, Gov. Zell Miller signed into law Georgia's Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995. The Act is premised upon the following findings and determinations of the General Assembly: that through direct appeal, sentence review, and habeas corpus the state now provides persons sentenced to death "adequate opportunities" to assert their constitutional rights; that habeas corpus proceedings should not be used by persons sentenced to death "solely as a delaying tactic under the guise of asserting rights;" and that "strict compliance" with habeas corpus procedures "will prevent the waste of limited resources and will eliminate unnecessary …

The Brady Bill: Surviving The Tenth Amendment, Amy M. Pepke

Vanderbilt Law Review

In late 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ("Brady Bill")' as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. By mid-1994, several suits had been initiated challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. Although the plaintiffs in each case brought several claims, the most viable and controversial challenge centers on the Tenth Amendment. Plaintiffs have argued that certain provisions of the Bill unconstitutionally commandeer state resources by imposing mandatory duties on the chief law enforcement officer ("CLEO") of the place of residence of the prospective gun purchaser. Supreme Court decisions on tenth amendment questions have been ambiguous …

True Lies: The Role Of Pretext Evidence Under Batson V. Kentucky In The Wake Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, David A. Sutphen

Michigan Law Review

In the process of determining whether a peremptory strike is valid, lower courts rely on the TI.tie VII burden-shifting framework originally laid out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green As a result, the order and presentation of proof in Batson cases deliberately parallels the order and presentation of proof in TI.tie VII intentional discrimination suits. In light of this similarity, the Supreme Court's recent TI.tie VII ruling in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks - that proof of pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework is not the legal equivalent to proof of intentional discrimination - raises …

Conflict Of The Criminal Statute Of Limitations With Lesser Offenses At Trial, Alan L. Adlestein

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Florida's Capital Sentencing Jury Override: Whom Should We Trust To Make The Ultimate Ethical Judgment?, Latour Rey Lafferty

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sexual Psychopath Legislation: Is There Anywhere To Go But Backwards?, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dna Profiling In North Carolina, James Morgan

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Serious Personal Injury Requirement For Rape Is Met By Mental Injury Alone - State V. Baker, Sharon P. Turner

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hair Analysis As A Drug Detector, Us Department Of Justice

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief

No abstract provided.

Resolution Of Prison Riots, Us Department Of Justice

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief

No abstract provided.

Reducing Violent Crimes And Intentional Injuries, Us Department Of Justice

National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs

No abstract provided.

Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: Admitting Out-Of-Court Statements Of Child Victims And Witnesses In Louisana, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ryon M. Mccabe

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Adversariness In Nonjury Criminal Trials, Sean Doran, John D. Jackson, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that when the jury is withdrawn from the common law criminal trial, the accused suffers an adversarial deficit. This deficit occurs because many of the procedural devices built into the trial process -- particularly those designed to provide the defendant with a meaningful opportunity to contest the case against him and to ensure that any determination of guilt is based solely on the evidence adduced in the courtroom -- are predicated on the existence of a decision-making body that comes "cold" to the contest, devoid of extraneous knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the relevant …

Feminist Legal Scholarship On Rape: A Maturing Look At One Form Of Violence Against Women, Morrison Torrey

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Taking Capital Jurors Seriously, Craig Haney

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

How Juries Decide Death: The Contributions Of The Capital Jury Project, Valerie P. Hans

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

Should Juries And The Death Penalty Mix?: A Prediction About The Supreme Court's Answer, Christopher Slobogin

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

The Capital Jury Project: The Role Of Responsibility And How Psychology Can Inform The Law, Steven J. Sherman

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

How Juries Decide Death: The Contributions Of The Capital Jury Project, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1988 I concluded a review of what was then known about capital jury decision-making with the following observations: “[T]he penalty phase presents significant incongruities. The jurors are charged with representing the community's judgment, yet the voir dire and challenge processes have eliminated significant segments of the public from the jury. Jurors have been influenced by preceding events during voir dire questioning and the trial in pivotal ways, yet they are instructed to focus only on aggravating and mitigating evidence. They are told to ignore their emotions in perhaps one of the most emotionally charged decisions they will ever make, …

Cross-Overs-Capital Jurors Who Change Their Minds About The Punishment: A Litmus Test For Sentencing Guidelines, Marla Sandys

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

The Capital Jury Project: Rationale, Design, And Preview Of Early Findings, William J. Bowers

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

Where's The Buck?: Juror Misperception Of Sentencing Responsibility In Death Penalty Cases, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

Violence, Representation, And Responsibility In Capital Trials: The View From The Jury, Austin Sarat

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

Discretion In Capital Sentencing Instructions: Guided Or Misguided?, James Luginbuhl, Julie Howe

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project

The Death Penalty Dialogue Between Law And Social Science (Symposium Keynote Address), David C. Baldus

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: The Capital Jury Project