Civil Procedure Commons^™

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Death Penalty Commutations: Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Clemency, Daniel T. Kobil

University of Richmond Law Review

The idea of the last-minute reprieve granted by a distant, unknowable dispenser of mercy to a man condemned to death has a powerful hold on our imaginations. Fyodor Dostoevsky's eleventh hour pardon by the czar in many ways shaped his literary career. The scene of the haunted Death Row prisoner who awaits word from the governor as a ticking clock punctuates his final hours is a stock vignette of Hollywood crime films. Anyone who has ever seized on the slimmest hope, whose fate has been committed to the hands of another - virtually all of us - can identify with …

The Congressional Subpeona: Power, Limitations And Witness Protection, Christopher F. Corr, Gregory J. Spak

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Case Comments: Civil And Criminal Procedure And Sentencing

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Forfeiture Of Property For Drug Offenders Under Illinois And Federal Statute: Zero Tolerance, Zero Exceptions, 25 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1992), T. J. Hiles

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standards Of Persuasion And The Distinction Between Fact And Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The invitation to respond in these pages to Gary Lawson's very interesting article, Proving the Law, was tempting enough. But what made it irresistible was Professor Lawson's comment that he is "addressing, with a brevity that borders on the irresponsible, subjects well beyond [his] depth." Now, that's the kind of debate I really like. Let me jump right in. A principal question raised by Lawson, which I find quite interesting, may be phrased in general, and purposefully ambiguous, terms as follows: Before an actor treats a proposition as a valid2 proposition of law, what standard of persuasion should that proposition …

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …

Ii. Civil And Crimnal Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Driving Under The Influences In Illinois, Robert G. Johnston, Thomas P. Higgins

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ii. Civil & Criminal Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gaining Access To The Jury: A Critical Guide To The Law Of Jury Selection In West Virginia, Part Two, Charles R. Disalvo

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Nullification: An Historical Perspective On A Modern Debate, Philip B. Scott

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gaining Access To The Jury: A Critical Guide To The Law Of Jury Selection In West Virginia, Charles R. Disalvo

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Grand Jury Reform: A Proposal For Change In Virginia, Charles E. Wall

University of Richmond Law Review

Once a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, the requirement of prosecution based upon grand jury indictment no longer stands unchallenged. Instead, alternate means of commencing prosecution, most notably by information and the preliminary hearing, have prompted lawmakers to look at the grand jury with a heightened scrutiny. Subsequently, such alternatives have become the primary prosecutorial tools in many states. Virginia, however, retains the grand jury system which was implemented in colonial times.

Excepting Civil Rico Claims From Rule 9(B), Chavie N. Kahn

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois Courts Struggle To Evaluate Race-Neutral Explanations For Peremptory Challenges Under Batson V. Kentucky, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 235 (1988), Kevin E. Bry

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Collision Between New Discovery Amendments And Expert Testimony Rules, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The young litigator's nightmare was always the same. He was in medieval Europe, ready to engage in a sword fight with the expert swordsman representing his arch rival. After countless hours of preparation, he felt confident that he would be able to hold his own against the swordsman. But when the swordsman drew his lengthy rapier from its sheath, the young attorney pulled only a short dagger from his scabbard. Realizing that he was doomed to defeat, he tossed his dagger into the air and ran from the scene with the laughter of the onlookers ringing in his ears.

The …

Report On Survey Of The Bar, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …

Jury Instructions For Civil And Criminal Rico Cases Approved By: Rico Cases Committee, Criminal Justice Section Of The American Bar Association

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appealability, Under The Collateral Order Doctrine, Of Orders Denying Motions For Appointment Of Counsel In Federal Civil Litigation After Richardson-Merrell, Inc. V. Koller, Kevin G. Dumbach

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Hickman: An Accused's Right To A Third Party Attorney--Lady Luck Or Lady Liberty, Joellen Lyons

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reforming West Virginia's Jury Selection Process: West Virginia Jury Selection And Service Legislation Of 1986, Keith A. George

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Interrogation And Confessions, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

In the police interrogation room, where, until the second third of the century, police practices were unscrutinized and virtually unregulated, constitutional ideals collide with the grim realities of law enforcement.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …