Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Suffolk County: People V. Shulman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

On Seeking Controlling Law And Re-Seeking Death Under Section 2929.06 Of The Ohio Revised Code , Margery B. Koosed

Cleveland State Law Review

This article explores and analyzes the two-pronged legal dilemma that confronted the court in State v. Marshall: in Ohio, finding the correct sentencing law is often difficult; and a recent amendment to the resentencing portion of that law, S.B. 258, destroys the efficiency that was characteristic of Ohio's previous resentencing framework. Consequently, Part II of this article examines the facts and holding of State v. Marshall and suggests that finding the applicable law must be simplified. Practitioner handbooks are often confusing and incomplete, in part as the Ohio legislature generates an ever-changing body of law. Justice and the lives of …

Go to article

Race, Angst And Capital Punishment: The Burger Court's Existential Struggle, Katherine R. Kruse

Scholarly Works

This article chronicles the Burger Court's inability to fashion a suitable remedy for racism in the discretionary system of capital sentencing. The article discusses the Court's initial response, “remedial paralysis,” which is evident, not only in McGautha v. California, where the Court refused to find that the Due Process Clause was violated by standardless death sentencing, but also in Furman v. Georgia, where the Court decided to abolish the death penalty. The article further explores the Court's reinstatement of the death penalty, and two of the Court's forays into “bad faith” denial that sustained the death penalty, particularly the Court's …