Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Salim Hamdan As Amicus Curiae, Boumediene V. Bush & Al Odah V. United States, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), Neal K. Katyal Aug 2007

Brief Of Salim Hamdan As Amicus Curiae, Boumediene V. Bush & Al Odah V. United States, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.


Brief Of Legal Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Boumediene V. Bush, Nos. 06-1195, 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), James Oldham Aug 2007

Brief Of Legal Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Boumediene V. Bush, Nos. 06-1195, 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.


Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi Feb 2007

Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi

Michigan Law Review

Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-called harmless errors committed by courts did not require correction. The Court acknowledged that some judicial errors, though recognizable as errors, did not threaten the validity of criminal convictions and therefore did not quite require reversal. Specifically, the Court held that errors that violated federal statutes should be deemed harmless unless they had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." While Kotteakos represented the Supreme Court's first treatment of the concept of harmlessness, other courts had a …


Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck Jan 2007

Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas petitions brought by detainees held as part of the “war on terrorism” has been a popular topic for courts and commentators alike. Little attention has been paid, however, to whether the Constitution itself interposes any jurisdictional limits over such petitions. In a series of recent cases, the US government has invoked the Supreme Court’s obscure (and obtuse) 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur (338 US 197) for the proposition that Article III forecloses jurisdiction over any petition brought by a detainee in foreign or international custody, including that of the “Multinational …