Law Commons^™

“No Superior But God”: History, Post Presidential Immunity, And The Intent Of The Framers, Trace M. Maddox

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

This essay is directly responsive to one of the most pressing issues currently before the courts of the United States: the question of whether former Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts they committed in office. Building upon the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) this essay argues that the clear answer to that question is a resounding “no”.

Former President Trump, who has now appealed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, contends that post-presidential criminal immunity is …

Comparative-Legal Analysis Of Legislation On Appeals Of Individuals And Legal Entities In Prosecution Bodies Of Foreign Countries, Zokirov Sherzod Ilxom O’G’Li

ProAcademy

The article analyzes the legislation on appeals of individuals and legal entities of advanced developed countries and member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the comparative legal analysis of the legislation of these countries, the place of the prosecutor’s offices in them in the state register is emphasized by dividing them into groups with special attention. This article presents a scientific, theoretical and practical study of the implementation of national legislation on the appeals of individuals and legal entities of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the positive aspects contained in their normative legal acts, in the presentation of …

Resolving The Anders Dilemmas: How & Why Texas Should Abandon The Anders Procedure, Michael J. Ritter

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

When an indigent defendant has a right to counsel for an appeal, and counsel believes the appeal is wholly frivolous, Texas has adopted the Anders v. California procedure that permits counsel to withdraw from representation and argue to the appellate court why their client’s appeal is wholly frivolous. This Article argues that, either by a change to the disciplinary rules or by judicial decision, Texas should abandon the Anders procedure as other states have. Doing so will promote the integrity of the right to counsel, avoid numerous conflicts and dilemmas created by the Anders procedure, and advance judicial efficiency and …

State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley

Maine Law Review

Twenty-one years ago, in Weeks v. State, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, adopted a rule to prevent judicial vindictiveness when resentencing defendants who had successfully appealed their conviction and been reconvicted. The Weeks court adopted as a state due process protection the United States Supreme Court's rule laid down the preceding year in North Carolina v. Pearce. The Pearce rule provides that harsher resentencing of such defendants creates a presumption of constitutionally prohibited vindictiveness unless the harsher sentence is explicitly based on some identifiable misconduct by the defendant since the prior sentencing. Thus, the Law …

It’S All Your Fault!: Examining The Defendant’S Use Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel As A Means Of Getting A “Second Bite At The Apple.”, Prentice L. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States Constitution provides individuals convicted of a crime with “a second bite at the apple.” The Sixth Amendment provides an avenue to appeal one’s conviction based on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” What were the Framers’ true intentions in using the phrase “effective assistance of counsel”? How does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 affect habeas corpus appeals? This article answers these questions through the eyes of Thomas—a fictional character who is appealing his murder conviction.

This article first looks at the history surrounding effective assistance of counsel and discusses the difficulties …

Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that (1) Under NRS 173.115(2), separate offenses may be joined against a defendant when they are committed as parts of a common scheme where the defendant’s separate crimes share features idiosyncratic in character; and (2) under NRS 174.165(1), joinder is proper in situations where a defendant commits similar offenses in separate instances.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

University of Richmond Law Review

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal

law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia

and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead

of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article

focuses on the "take-away" of the holdings with the most

precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy

changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia

General Assembly.

“What Are My Chances On Appeal?” Comparing Full Appellate Decisions To Per Curiam Affirmances, Steven N. Gosney

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

When An Appeal Goes Wrong: A “Criminal Justice Nightmare”, David R. Dow, Jeffrey R. Newberry

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Jeffries V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (July 6, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial, the Court held that (1) to prove prosecutorial misconduct, an appellant must show that a prosecutor’s statements resulted in a denial of due process; and (2) to prove juror misconduct, an appellant must show that misconduct occurred and that the misconduct was prejudicial. The Court also clarified Bowman v. State’s applicability by stating that when juror misconduct occurs before the verdict, and defense counsel is aware of the misconduct, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to request an investigation regarding prejudice. Finally, the Court defined the scope of Gonzalez v. State by stating …

Ohio's Post-Conviction Appeal Remedy, Timothy J. Murty

Akron Law Review

Ohio has recently adopted legislation intended to provide a prisoner with a means of testing, in the court which originally imposed sentence, the constitutional validity of his sentence. This legislation is intended to provide a remedy which will supplement the writ of habeas corpus. Jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings lies in the court of the county in which the prisoner is confined. In recent years the courts located in counties containing state correctional institutions have been deluged with habeas corpus petitions.

State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter because the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) authorizes such an appeal and because unique policy concerns identified in State v. Lewis[1] do not apply.

[1] 124 Nev. 132, 136, 178 P.3d 146, 148 (2008).

County Court, Rockland County, People V. Clark, Lauren Tan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Ramirez, Nicole Compas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell, Kathleen B. Martin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Determination Of The Duty Of Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel: An Analysis Of Jones V. Barnes , Catherine D. Purcell

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Violations As "Plain Error" Under Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 52(B), Gabriel J. Chin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell, Kathleen B. Martin

University of Richmond Law Review

This article aims to give the criminal law practitioner a succinct review of significant cases regarding criminal law and procedure decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court ofAppeals of Virginia during the past year. The authors have focused their discussion of the cases on cogent points found in the holdings. The article also briefly summarizes recent legislative enactments pertaining to criminal law.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Virginia B. Theisen

University of Richmond Law Review

Once more, the past year yielded a wealth of developments in the area of criminal law and procedure. The author has endeavored to cull the most significant decisions and legislative enactments, with an eye toward the "takeaway" from a case rather than a discussion of settled principles.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Virginia B. Theisen, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many cases and bills those that have the most significant practical impact on the daily practice of criminal law in the Commonwealth. Due to space constraints, the authors have stayed away from discussing settled principles, with a focus on the "take away" for a particular case.

The Future Of American Sentencing: A National Roundtable On Blakely, Ronald J. Allen, Albert Alschuler, Douglas A. Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Frank O. Bowman Iii, Daniel P. Blank, Charles R. Breyer, Steven Chanenson, Michael R. Dreeben, Margareth Etienne, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Patrick Keenan, Joseph E. Kennedy, Nancy J. King, Susan J. Klein, Rory K. Little, Marc L. Miller, J. Bradley O'Connell, David Porter, Kevin R. Reitz, Daniel C. Richman, Kate Stith, Barbara Tombs, Richard B. Walker, Robert Weisberg, Robert F. Wright Jr., Jonathan Wroblewski, David N. Yellen

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the dramatic Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, Stanford Law School convened an assembly of the most eminent academic and professional sentencing experts in the country to jointly assess the meaning of the decision and its implications for federal and state sentencing reform. The event took place on October 8 and 9, just a few months after Blakely came down and the very week that the Supreme Court heard the arguments in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, the cases that will test Blakely's application to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Thus the …

Trial Procedure—An Analysis Of Arkansas's Exceptional Treatment Of The Contemporaneous Objection Rule In Criminal Bench Trials. Strickland V. State, 322 Ark. 312, 909 S.W.2d 318 (1995)., Dale D. Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparison Of The Federal And New York State Rape Shield Statutes, Deborah Stavile Bartel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.