Criminal Law Commons^™

Special Report - Federal Criminal Code Revision: Some Problems With Culpability Provisions, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The age of federal codification is upon us. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the new bankruptcy and copyright revisions are but examples. By far the most ambitious undertaking in this regard is the effort to recodify federal criminal law.

The federal criminal code project, spanning more than a decade was most recently embodied in the last Congress in S. 1437, which passed the Senate, and H.R. 13959, which competed in the House with S. 1437. Neither bill passed the House. Thus, the Congress closed without a new Code. But both the bills will be back with us, introduced with …

Habeas Corpus And Freedom Of Speech, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Discussion concerning the proper scope of federal habeas corpus for state prisoners usually focuses upon the use of the writ as a federal remedy for procedural errors of constitutional magnitude in state criminal trials. Proponents of “liberal” habeas argue that only federal courts can adequately protect the federal procedural rights of state criminal defendants, while critics contend that the states' interest in administering their criminal laws free from federal interference overshadows the asserted benefits. Setting the proper scope of the writ requires a weighing of these competing values.

The focus on procedure is appropriate, because the vast majority of habeas …

Criminal Law, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus And Freedom Of Speech, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

This Article will examine substantive attacks on habeas based on the assertion that the petitioner's confinement violates his first amendment rights of free speech, press or assembly. The thesis is that when these rights are at issue, the considerations supporting broad habeas are stronger, and the costs of habeas are lower, than when the petitioner is asserting the violation of a federal procedural right. As a result, the necessary choice of values is more easily resolved in favor of broad first amendment habeas than it is for broad procedural habeas. Essential to this analysis is the premise that a habeas …

Ordered Liberty: Cardozo And The Constitution, John T. Noonan Jr.

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Multiple Representation And Conflicts Of Interest In Criminal Cases, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Conflicts of interest resulting from multiple representation in criminal cases impose heavy burdens on all the participants in the criminal justice system. Although the Supreme Court in Holloway v. Arkansas refused to hold that joint representation is unconstitutional per se, it recently approved Proposed Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c), which would require trial courts to protect a defendant's right to counsel in this situation. After discussing the current approaches of the courts to the problems presented by joint representation, Professor Tague analyzes the proposed rule. He criticizes the proposed rule for its failure to define the role of the trial …

Status Of Student Practice Rules People V. Perez—An Initial Look At The Sixth Amendment, Catherine Walker

Seattle University Law Review

Despite the advent of the limited practice of law by law students as early as 1957, a California Court of Appeals in 1978 became the first court to examine the sixth amendment status of student representation in state criminal prosecutions. In People v. Perez, a California appellate court concluded that a lawyer-supervised law student, certified for limited practice by the California Student Practice Rules, is per se ineffective counsel in felony trials. Ostensibly to protect the defendant's right to effective counsel, Perez struck down the student practice rules without considering the proper function of certification in sixth amendment analysis. Moreover, …

Cognitive Death: Differential Problems And Legal Overtones, H. Richard Beresford

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Defillippo, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Duren V. Missouri, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Brown V. Texas, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Dunn V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Dalia V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Arkansas V. Sanders, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Smith V. Maryland, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Commonwealth Of Massachusetts V. White, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Dunaway V. New York, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Analysis Of The Prohibition Against Collateral Attack In The Mexican-American Prisoner Exchange Treaty, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Introduction: On November 25, 1976, the United States and Mexico concluded a bilateral treaty providing for reciprocal prisoner exchange, so that a national of one party to the agreement could complete his sentence in his home country.' The objectives of the agreement essentially were twofold: first, there was a need to ameliorate relations with Mexico on the delicate matter of the abuse of American citizens confined in Mexican prisons; second, there was a strong desire to alleviate special hardships, such as those respecting living conditions and prospects for rehabilitation, resulting from imprisonment in a foreign country. The Treaty was ratified …

United States Supreme Court 1977-1978 Term : Criminal Law Decisions, B. J. George Jr.

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pleas Of Guilty And The Loss Of Constitutional Rights: The Current Price Of Pleading Guilty, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Michigan Law Review

This Article proposes the same basic rule as Westen's to explain the Supreme Court's decisions, but for very different reasons which require several modifications of the Westen rule. I argue that all the guilty-plea cases, properly viewed, are consistent with, and therefore can be read as evidence of, a theory more easily applied than articulated by the Court: that some constitutional rights are largely premised on notions of litigation avoidance, that their "avoidance" rationales must be respected, and that these rights therefore prevent governments from establishing procedural rules that force criminal defendants to go to trial-to choose more rather than …

Forfeiture By Guilty Plea--A Reply, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

I will begin by describing what I think Professor Saltzburg and I both mean by a ''legal theory." I then apply that standard to test the validity of the two theories at issue here, first Professor Saltzburg's, then mine. I next discuss a third theory that is independent of both Professor Saltzburg's and mine, viz., that whether a constitutional claim survives a guilty plea depends on whether it is ''jurisdictional." Finally, I comment generally on the concept of forfeiture and its influence on the way one conceives of constitutional rights.

A Step Toward Uniformity: Review Of Life Sentences In Capital Cases, Ron Bergwerk

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumptive Possession Of Weapons: New York's Controversial Statute, Murray N. Caplan

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Fair Warning Of Retroactive Law Is Sufficient Compliance With The Ex Post Facto Clause-Do B Bert V. Florida

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right Of Privacy—Fornication Statute Held Unconstitutional—State V. Saunders, Lawrence M. Ross

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure - Due Process Is Not Violated When Prosecutor Carries Out Threat To Bring Increased Charges After Defendant Refuses To Plead Guilty During Plea Bargaining Session, Catherine N. Jasons

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

State V. Roberts: A Persuasive But Unsupported Position, Robert A. Boyd

Cleveland State Law Review

The Ohio Supreme Court recently held in State v. Roberts that when a witness is unavailable at the trial of a criminal defendant, the state may not introduce the witness' preliminary hearing testimony into evidence unless he had been cross-examined at the preliminary hearing. The court found that the defendant, Roberts, had been denied his right to confront an adverse witness when the trial court admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who was not present at trial, and held that mere opportunity to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing, unexercised, did not satisfy the demands of the Confrontation Clause …

Federal Habeas Corpus And Ineffective Representation Of Counsel: The Supreme Court Has Work To Do, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The availability of federal habeas corpus relief for state criminal defendants has always borne a complex relationship to state rules barring defendants from litigating constitutional claims in state court because of procedural defaults in raising those claims. The Warren Court's landmark attempt to resolve this relationship was the 1963 decision in Fay v. Noia, which asserted that a state procedural forfeiture rule could not bar federal habeas review of a constitutional claim unless the defendant had "deliberately bypassed" the procedural opportunity to raise the claim; the Court defined "deliberate bypass" in terms of a defendant's intentional and voluntary relinquishment of …

Kalender Ketatanegaraan Di Indonesia, Harmaili Ibrahim

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

No abstract provided.

Modernisasi Dan Pengembangan Kesadaran Hukum Masyarakat, Bismar Siregar

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

No abstract provided.