Criminal Law Commons^™

The Iranian Litigation: Implications For American Business Interests, Charles G. Labella

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coast Guard Boardings Of Suspected Drug Smuggling Vessels On The High Seas And The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Streifel, Roger A. Stetter

Cardozo Law Review

Report and Recommendation to the New York State Bar Association by the Committee on Federal Constitution

Testimonial Immunity And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: A Study In Isomorphism, Peter Lushing

Articles

This Article accepts and will develop the Court's isomorphic theory of immunity and privilege, and will show why Portash is nonetheless correct in result. A case for a broadened view of the privilege, partially because of the availability of testimonial immunity, will be made. Apftlbaum will be shown to be incorrect in result. This Article will also analyze the problem of immunized testimony and perjury by inconsistent statement, a problem faced once by the Court but left unresolved. Finally, this Article will discuss the constitutional requirements of an immunity statute, and consider an immunity case presently pending before the Supreme …

Faces Without Features: The Surface Validity Of Criminal Inferences, Peter Lushing

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in County Court v. Allen, arguing that the Court's approach to evaluating instructed inferences in criminal cases undermines the integrity of the fact-finding process. The central concern is that the Court's methodology, which assesses inferences as applied rather than on their face, fails to address the potential irrationality of such inferences and the pressure they may exert on jurors to convict without thorough consideration of the evidence. The article advocates for a more rigorous standard to ensure the rationality and constitutionality of instructed inferences in criminal trials.

Professor Nagel's Reflections On Cardozo, Anthony D'Amato

Cardozo Law Review

In the first issue of the Cardozo Law Review, Professor Ernest Nagel, in Reflections on "The Nature of the Judicial Process," criticized Justice Cardozo's professed abandonment of the distinction between custom and law. Professor Anthony DAmato, in Judicial Legislation, argued that Cardozo's opinions belied his assertion of the necessity for judicial legislation, and adhered generally to the theory that cases should be decided in accordance with law as it is found, rather than made, by judges.

In this commentary, Professor D'Amato argues that Professor Nagel's assertion of a distinction between law and custom is inconsistent with the development of the …

In Memory Of Monrad G. Paulsen, Sanford H. Kadish

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eyewitness Identification In War Crimes Trials, Debra H. Nesselson, Steven Lubet

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kariti V. Attorney General, Zvi Berinson, Eliyahu Manny, Binyamin Halevy

Translated Opinions

The appellant was charged on five counts of incorrect capital and income returns over some three years. One count was struck out by mutual consent. He was convicted by the Magistrate's Court on two counts and acquitted of the remaining two. On appeal to the District Court he was acquitted of a further count. Affirmation of his conviction on the remaining count was vaguely attributed to one of two years or both of them and the charge was amended accordingly and in the result the struck out count was revived. The appellant pleaded on appeal that in convicting him the …

Attorney General V. Weigel, Zvi Berinson, Binyamin Halevy, Eliyahu Manny, Haim Herman Cohn, Yitzhak Olshan

Translated Opinions

The respondent was convicted at first instance of being a procurer under section 1(b) of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, but owing to the special circumstances of the case he was not given a prison sentence but put on probation. An appeal to the Supreme Court having failed, the Attorney-General applied for a Further Hearing* regarding the construction of the said section 10 in the light of section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944. The sole issue was whether a person convicted under the Law must be sentenced to imprisonment or may instead be …

Abu Amiram V. Attorney General, Moshe Landau, Shimon Agranat, Alfred Witkon

Translated Opinions

In broad daylight in the centre of Raanana, the appellant and his brother together stabbed one Abdush to death as an act of veneance for the slaying of their father by the son of Abdush. The appellant pleaded that the killing was an attempt and not murder since there was no evidence as to which knife wound had caused the death, nor was he an accom­ plice since he was of a psychopathic nature and unaware that his brother had done the killing. The onslaught on the deceased had not been premeditated but arose in the course of an accidental …

A V. B, Yitzhak Olshan, Moshe Landau, Alfred Witkon, Zvi Berinson, Yoel Sussman

Translated Opinions

The appellant claimed an order in the District Court against the respondents, who were husband and wife, declaring that he was the natural father of a child born to the wife and registered as that of the respondents. The claim was struck out in limine and the appellant appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal,

Per Olshan P. The granting of a declaratory order is in the discretion of the court, and having regard to the nature of the claim, public interest and morality, the prejudice to the status and interests of the child who was not even a party to the …

Lahisse V. Minister Of Defense, Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Moshe Silberg, Yitzhak Olshan

Translated Opinions

An officer in the Israel Army was charged before a military court in Israel with murder, an offence under S. 214(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance 1936 and section 97 of the Army Code 1948. The officer submitted that the military court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the acts with which he was charged were alleged to have been committed in Hula, a village in Lebanon, and outside the borders of either Israel, or Palestine as constituted under the Mandate. This submission was rejected, but the case was stood over to allow him to petition the High Court on the …

Weiss V. Inspector General, Moshe Landau, Yitzhak Olshan, Yoel Sussman

Translated Opinions

The petitioners were members of the Israel Police Force. They were sent to the "Gaza strip" when it was occupied by Israel armed forces after the Sinai Campaign to do normal police work there. In contravention of an order forbidding the purchase of goods, they bought nylon material, medicines, cameras and films. They were charged before a Court of Discipline which was set up under the Police Ordinance. The petitioners contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear charges against them because, inter alia, the Police Ordinance only dealt and could only deal with offences committed in Israel and …

Malka V. Attorney General, Moshe Silberg, Zvi Berinson, David Goitein

Translated Opinions

On September 1, 1953, the appellant, who was driving a truck, knocked down a child of two years of age, Shimon Manan, causing a fracture of the arm. The child was taken to hospital where the doctors examined the arm, discovered the fracture, but also found that the fracture was a closed one so that the child's blood had not come in contact with the road. The doctors considered that there was, for this reason, no need to give the child an antitetanus injection, and that in fact it "might have been dangerous to do so. The child remained under …

Mandelbrot V. Attorney General, Shimon Agranat, Moshe Silberg, David Goitein

Translated Opinions

The appellant was charged under section 214(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, with the murder of one Meir Shifman. He was employed at the Ata textile works in the north of Israel in the year 1951. On December 26, 1951, he went to work taking a loaded revolver with him. At 9.30 a.m. he went towards a fellow employee, with whom he had at one time been friendly, one Luba Kreiner, and fired two shots at her which struck her in the right arm. She tried to run away from the appellant, but tripped up and fell. Shifman, …

Deutsch V. Attorney General, Shimon Agranat, David Goitein, Yoel Sussman

Translated Opinions

The effect of the provision in section 217 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, 1) that "an unlawful omission is an omission amounting to culpable negligence to discharge a duty (of care)..." is that a person can be convicted of the offence of manslaughter, defined in section 212 2) as "causing the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission", only where it is proved:

(a) that the lack of care on the part of the accused amounted to "gross negligence", that is to say, was a serious divergence from the standard of reasonable care, and

(b) that …

Rassi V. Attorney General, Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Moshe Landau, Simha Assaf

Translated Opinions

The appellant, a nun and a supervisor of an orphanage, was convicted on a number of counts of assaulting children under her care in that she had inflicted corporal punishment upon them for bad behaviour; she was fined IL. 150 and directed to furnish security for good behaviour. It was contended on her behalf that she stood in loco parentis and as such was entitled to inflict such corporal punishment on the children as she considered necessary.

Held: dismissing the appeal:

(a) that the principles of English common law should be applied according to which parents are entitled to inflict …

Sapoznikov V. The Court Of Discipline Of The Israel Police, Yoel Sussman, Moshe Silberg, Yitzhak Olshan

Translated Opinions

Under section 18 of the Police Ordinance the Inspector-General may constitute Courts of Discipline to try police officers charged with disciplinary offences, the section prescribing the offences which may be the subject of such charges. One of those offences is thus described (in section 18(1)(i)): "any offence contrary to the good order and discipline of the Force.. ." The High Commissioner in Council was empowered by section 50(1)(e) to make rules "for the definition of offences to the prejudice of good order and discipline", and under that power made the Police (Disciplinary Offences) (Definition) Rules, 1941. Offence No. 23 of …

Yosifof V. Attorney General, Moshe Landau, Moshe Silberg, Moshe Smoira

Translated Opinions

The appellant, an Israel Jew belonging to the Caucasian community, married in the year 1936. He married a second time in the year 1950 while the first marriage still subsisted. He was convicted of bigamy under s. 181 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936 1) and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. On appeal it was argued that s. 181 was ultra vires the powers of the High Commissioner by reason of Article 17(1)(a) 2)2) of the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (as amended) in that the section introduced discrimination between the inhabitants of Palestine, namely, between Moslems and Jews, …

Levitt V. Angel, Yitzhak Olshan, Menachem Dunkelblum, Shneor Zalman Cheshin

Translated Opinions

The appellant, who had allowed third parties to occupy premises in breach of an injunction restraining him from so doing was convicted of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Ordinance and was sentenced to a fine of I.L. 250 or three months imprisonment. This sentence was imposed on the appellant by the District Court not for the purpose of inducing him to comply with the terms of the injunction, which had become impossible, but as a punishment for its breach.

Held, allowing the appeal, that the purpose of the sanctions in the Contempt of Court Ordinance is to …

Neiman V. Military Governor Of The Occupied Area Of Jerusalem, Moshe Smoira, Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Yitzhak Olshan

Translated Opinions

The Petitioner, while employed by the Army as a civilian employee, assaulted a soldier and committed other acts constituting criminal offences under both military and civil law. After he had ceased to be so employed, the Petitioner was charged before a military court. He sought an order restraining the military court from proceeding with the charges on the grounds that he was not at the relevant time a soldier within the meaning of the Army Code, or alternatively that he had ceased to be a soldier when charged and that a military court therefore had no jurisdiction in the matter. …