Criminal Law Commons^™

Commentary - Co-Opting Compassion: The Federal Victim's Rights Amendment, Lynne Henderson

St. Thomas Law Review

This Commentary will explore some of the jurisprudential and practical issues by examining the nature of victims' rights and victimization. After a brief introduction to the history of victim's rights amendments in the United States, this Commentary will explore the images in the rhetoric that lead to unreflective support for victims' rights, then turn to images of justice and arguments for a particular kind of victims' rights, together with a critique of that vision. Finally, this Commentary suggests some alternative approaches and programs that promise to be more helpful to victims of crime than any constitutional amendment would be.

Co-Opting Compassion: The Federal Victim's Rights Amendment, Lynne N. Henderson

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, Court Of Appeals: People V. Vasquez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, Supreme Court, Appellate Term Second Judicial Department: People V. Steele

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Anti-Gang Legislation, Beth Bjerregaard

Campbell Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine the constitutionality of anti-gang legislation within the context of the First Amendment. Specifically, the doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth and the related issue of freedom of association will be examined with respect to statutory provisions which criminalize gang participation.

Co-Opting Compassion: The Federal Victim's Rights Amendment, Lynne Henderson

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Supreme Court Of Canada, Parliament And The Charter: Exploring The Limits Of The Judicial Function In Criminal Law, Patricia A. Fricker

LLM Theses

Two constitutional principles--constitutional supremacy and parliamentary supremacy--should not be treated as antagonistic. The task for the Supreme Court of Canada since its elevation as constitutional arbiter has been to find the balance between these two constitutional doctrines. It must do so within the limits prescribed by the judicial function. What are those limits in the context of criminal law? The definitional elements of the offence; the political and legal theory of classical liberalism; the Charter's constitutional, as opposed to statutory, character; the primacy of either crime control or due process values in judicial decision-making; the fluctuating balance in the criminal …

Neonaticide And The "Ethos Of Maternity": Traditional Criminal Law Defenses And The Novel Syndrome, Judith E. Macfarlane

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note explores the legal and psychological dimensions of neonaticide, proposing the recognition of a Neonaticide Syndrome to better understand the mental state of perpetrators and inform legal defenses. It argues that such a syndrome, characterized by denial of pregnancy and psychotic breaks, could provide a framework for lenient sentencing and negate intent in homicide charges, similar to how Rape Trauma Syndrome and Battered Woman Syndrome are used in court. The analysis emphasizes the need for expert testimony to explain the mental state of defendants and the admissibility of such evidence under Frye and Daubert standards.

Taking The Cop Out Of Copping A Plea: Eradicating Police Prosecution Of Criminal Cases, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Slashing And Burning Prisoners' Rights: Congress And The Supreme Court In Dialogue, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Irony Of Harmless Error, Charles S. Chapel

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does New York's Death Penalty Statute Violate The New York Constitution? (Symposium: New York State Constitutional Law: Trends And Developments), Richard Klein, Hon. Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., Christopher Quinn

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Institutional Analysis And Physicians’ Rights After Vacco V. Quill, Larry I. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Deciding The Stop And Frisk Cases: A Look Inside The Supreme Court's Conference, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

In our system of constitutional decision-making, the Supreme Court makes law as an institution in its formal written opinions. The Court and its individual members make their official legal marks in the printed pages of the United States Reports. In June 1968, in Terry v. Ohio and Sibron v. New York, the two decisions that approved the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of police stop and frisk practices, the Court filled many official pages with rich discussion. Over the ensuing thirty years, these Court and individual opinions have shaped the course of constitutional analysis in our courts and guided the …

The Street Locations: Downtown Cleveland, October 31, 1963, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

This appendix to Deciding the Stop and Frisk Cases: A Look Inside the Supreme Court’s Conference, 72 St. John’s L. Rev. 749 (1998), consists of a map drawn by Jill Dinneen (SJU Law '99), based on Sanborn maps from the 1950s and 1960s, photographs and eyewitness descriptions of downtown Cleveland then and now; and a key to marked locations on the map.

State Of Ohio V. Richard D. Chilton And State Of Ohio V. John W. Terry: The Suppression Hearing And Trial Transcripts, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

This appendix to Deciding the Stop and Frisk Cases: A Look Inside the Supreme Court’s Conference, 72 St. John’s L. Rev. 749 (1998), includes Biographical Information on the Participants in the Case; and transcripts of the complete pretrial and trial proceedings in the 1964 criminal prosecutions of Richard Chilton and John Terry, arranged by Prof. Barrett to create the organization reflected in the Table of Contents at the beginning of the appendix. Footnotes were added to provide citations and, in a few instances, to clarify the text. Bracketed material was added to correct obvious slips of the tongue or the …

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Batson Ethics For Prosecutors And Trial Court Judges, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Washington Search And Seizure Law: 1998 Update, Justice Charles W. Johnson

Seattle University Law Review

This Survey, as did the previous Surveys, summarizes the predominant treatment of search and seizure issues under the Fourth Amendment and under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution to the extent that this state's provision is interpreted differently from the federal provision. The Survey focuses primarily on substantive search and seizure law in the criminal context; it omits discussion of many procedural issues.

Toward Dispassionate, Effective Control Of Sexual Offenders , Carol L. Kunz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Origins Of The Fifth Amendment And Its Critics, Leonard W. Levy

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kogen V. Chief Military Prosecutor, Theodor Or, Dalia Dorner, Jacob Turkel

Translated Opinions

Facts: Petitioners, prisoners in a military prison, participated in a prison uprising allegedly motivated by deficient prison conditions. The military authorities negotiated with the inmates, who demanded improvements in prison conditions and a commitment from the authorities not to prosecute them. The military authorities agreed to this last condition. Despite this agreement, however, the inmates were prosecuted. Petitioners here contest this latter decision.

Held: The Court noted that precedents allow for the government to repudiate an agreement if such a step is dictated by the public interest. Such a decision must take all the relevant interests into account, including the …

Beating The Prisoner At Prisoner's Dilemma: The Evidentiary Value Of A Witness's Refusal To Testify , Russell Dean Covey

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Possessing With Intent To Distribute" Under The Schoolyard Statute, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

This Comment proposes that courts should explicitly rather than implicitly distinguish the different types of defendants accused of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances within a school zone. Part I reviews the current state of the law on this issue and presents the legislative history and textual arguments involved in the debate over the mens rea requirement. Part II examines the factual circumstances at issue in the relevant cases and concludes that these factual circumstances, rather than competing statutory interpretations, lead to *1401 the different results. Finally, Part III emphasizes the need to recognize these implicit categories of offenses …

Warren E. Buffett On Corporate Constituency Laws And Other Newfangled Ideas: An Imaginary Conversation, Bevis Longstreth

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Criminal Procedure, James P. Fleissner

Mercer Law Review

The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution are the three pillars of the American system of criminal justice. The three amendments make procedural guarantees using enigmatic terms that are given meaning by those with the power of interpretation. The Fourth Amendment protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment includes a guarantee of "due process of law." The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "speedy" trial. In the years since 1791, when these provisions were enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the courts have played the leading role in shaping the scope of these broad pronouncements. …

Can You Lie To The Government And Get Away With It--The Exculpatory-No Defense Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, Stephen Michael Everhart

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating The Scales Of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform, Kimberly A. Pace

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

There Is No Such Thing As A Harmless Constitutional Error: Returning To A Rule Of Automatic Reversal, James Edward Wicht Iii

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.