Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.
Expedited Review Of Capital Post-Conviction Claims: Idaho’S Flawed Process, Joan M. Fisher
Expedited Review Of Capital Post-Conviction Claims: Idaho’S Flawed Process, Joan M. Fisher
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) is a federal attempt to expedite litigation in capital cases. Many states adopted unitary appeal systems in response to the AEDPA. Unitary systems consolidate the direct appeal and state post-conviction process. In Idaho, Idaho Code § 19-4908 establishes special proceedings for capital cases including a forty-two day limitation to present any claims. This article makes a critical analysis of Idaho’s capital post-conviction procedure.
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
Disarray Among The Federal Circuits: Harmless Error Review Of Rule 11 Violations, Brent E. Newton
Disarray Among The Federal Circuits: Harmless Error Review Of Rule 11 Violations, Brent E. Newton
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 governs how a defendant must be counseled when pleading guilty or nolo contendre. Federal Courts of Appeals have held that violation of Rule 11 is harmless error. Since it is harmless error, the lower courts’ decisions are upheld. This article argues that the Federal Courts of Appeals have misapplied the harmless error standard when deciding Rule 11 issues.