Criminal Law Commons^™

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus, Qualified Immunity, And Crystal Balls: Predicting The Course Of Constitutional Law, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

After describing the basic legal and policy issues surrounding the qualified immunity defense and the use of novelty to explain procedural defaults in habeas cases, Part I of this article advocates a standard for both types of cases that asks whether a person exercising reasonable diligence in the same circumstances would have been aware of the relevant constitutional principles. With this standard in mind, Part II examines the qualified immunity defense in detail, concluding that in many cases public officials are given immunity even though they unreasonably failed to recognize the constitutional implications of their conduct. Part III compares the …

Self-Defense As A Justification For Punishment, George P. Fletcher

Faculty Scholarship

There are few legal ideas as basic as the principle of legitimate self-defense. Every individual, it is said, has the right to defend his or her person, property or living space against wrongful aggression and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor. This principle is so deeply ingrained in our legal thinking that it is difficult to imagine a legal system that did not acknowledge it. The concept of having rights would be virtually toothless unless we could use force to vindicate our rights against aggression.

The notion of having rights is less well-accepted in Jewish law than are the ideas …

A Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard In Death Penalty Proceedings: A Neglected Element Of Fairness, Linda Carter

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Great Writ In Action: Empirical Light On The Federal Habeas Corpus Debate, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

The national debate regarding federal habeas corpus for state prisoners is fueled in the main by ideology. To some, the authority of the federal courts to entertain constitutional challenges to state criminal convictions is the embodiment of all that was right about the Warren Court and the vision that Court offered of a meaningful system of American liberty, underwritten by independent federal tribunals willing and able to check the coercive power of government. By this account, the Bill of Rights is the protean source of safeguards for individual freedom - commanding generous, imaginative, and insightful elaboration by federal courts at …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Donald F. Samuel, Kathleen V. Duffield

Mercer Law Review

In many respects, this was a quiet year in the area of criminal law and procedure. Though the appellate courts reviewed nearly as many criminal cases as all other types of cases combined, there were few major developments that marked a departure from settled precedent. Perhaps the most significant developments involved two areas of substantive law: the Georgia Supreme Court staked out new territory in the area of bribery,1 holding that a "campaign contribution" may amount to a bribe if the donor expects a specific quid pro quo;2 and the court held that in future murder cases involving self-defense, the …

The Most Fundamental Change In The Criminal Justice System: The Role Of The Prosecutor In Sentence Reduction, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

As every lawyer knows, the prosecutor is the most powerful figure in the American criminal justice system. The prosecutor decides whom to charge, what charges to bring, whether to permit a defendant to plead guilty, and whether to confer immunity. In carrying out this broad decision-making power, the prosecutor enjoys considerable independence. Indeed, one of the most elusive and vexing subjects in criminal justice has been to define the limits of the prosecutor’s discretion.

The Self-Incrimination Debate, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Speaking And Writing Against Hate, Martha Minow

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Name Of The Law, Samuel Weber

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ultimate Injustice: When A Court Misstates The Facts, Anthony D'Amato

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Case Of Confession, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Adversarial System At Risk, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The most ominous recent development affecting the balance of forces in the adversary system is the unprecedented attack by prosecutors on criminal defense lawyers themselves. Grand jury subpoenas to attorneys, law office searches, disqualification motions, fee forfeiture proceedings, and, most recently, IRS attempts to enforce currency-reporting regulations do not seem to be isolated occurrences or mere happenstance. Rather, perhaps inspired by Shakespeare's injunction in Henry VI to "kill all the lawyers," some prosecutors appear to have concluded that the most effective way to prevail in the battle against crime is to cripple the defense lawyers, particularly those who represent defendants …

The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), an exception to the rule against admission of hearsay, permits introduction of public records or reports containing the fact findings of the reporter without requiring the reporter to appear at trial. These fact findings can be based upon the reporter's own observations and calculations or information imparted to the reporter from sources having no connection to any public agency whatsoever. Rule 803(8)(C) has also been used as the vehicle for presenting juries with fact findings from hearings conducted by public officials. The rule would seem to allow these fact findings even though the opponent had …

Stanford V. Kentucky: The Minimum Age For The Maximum Penalty - Death, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (1990), Alison R. Faltersack

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Foreiture, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (1990), Stephen M. Kightlinger

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation At Capital Sentencing Hearings: Illinois Violates The Federal Constitution By Permitting Juries To Sentence Defendants To Death On The Basis Of Ordinarily Inadmissible Hearsay, Mark Silverstein

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Addressing The Needs Of Attorneys For The Damned, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

This article is an introduction to the UMKC Law Review symposium issue dedicated to exploring the topic of capital punishment. UMKC Professor of Law Sean O’Brien shares how the growing importance of capital litigation makes this a timely and appropriate subject for consideration and shares how the university and the Law Review's attention to the death penalty debate contributes to more than just academic discussion.

Tape Recording Conversations - Is It Ethical For Attorneys?, Charles W. Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Waiver Of Constitutional Issues In Criminal Cases: Confusion In The Illinois Supreme Court, 11 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 55 (1990), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Vindicating The Defendant's Constitutional Right To Testify At A Criminal Trial: The Need For An On-The-Record Waiver, 51 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 809 (1990), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Lockhart V. Nelson: Trial Error, Evidentiary Insufficiency, And Double Jeopardy, Scott E. Schul

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Solving The Pretext Puzzle: The Importance Of Ulterior Motives And Fabrications In The Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment Pretext Doctrine, Edwin J. Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the pretext issue. It shows that the Supreme Court's definition of pretext is broader than the definition of pretext used by these commentators. The Supreme Court's definition includes both "legal" and fabricated pretexts. In a "legal" pretext, the government offers a justification that is not the true reason for the police activity, but that, if the motivation of the officer is not considered, legally justifies the activity. In a fabricated pretext, the government offers a justification …

Foreword: Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Ilene H. Nagel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

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.

A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Step Towards Fairness In Capital Litigation: Missouri Resource Center, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.