Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Rawlings V. Kentucky, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Adams V. Texas, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Plea Bargaining: Is Contract Law Or Constitutional Law The Governing Principle, Herman Lewis Sloan

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Standing And Expectations Of Privacy: Rakas V. Illinois And New Directions For Some Old Concepts, Richard A. Williamson

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Allocation Of Peremptory Challenges Among Multiple Parties., Daniel J. Sheehan Jr., Cynthia C. Hollingsworth

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Jury Tampering - 1978 Style Lawyer's Forum., W. James Kronzer

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Arizona V. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Law-MISTRIAL DECLARATION-OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION, PROSECUTION MUST DEMONSTRATE HIGH DEGREE OF MANIFEST NECESSITY OR REPROSECUTION WILL BE BARRED

Burdening The Fifth Amendment: Toward A Presumptive Barrier Theory, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

Judging how heavily the state may burden the decision to exercise or forego the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a concededly problematic undertaking. Nevertheless, the formulation of a standard is essential to ensure principled decision making. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court has thus far avoided the task. The decisions from the Warren era suggest in very broad language that any burden on the exercise of the right to remain silent is forbidden, while more recent rulings have barred only those penalties automatically imposed for assertions of the privilege. Neither extreme, however, represents a satisfactory resolution of the conflicting interests …

Due Process Limitations On Prosecutorial Discretion In Re-Charging Defendants: Pearce To Blackledge To Bordenkircher, Donald C. Smaltz

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule In Parole Revocation Hearings : Deterring Official Infringement Of Parolees' Fourth Amendment Rights, Billy Glenn Dupree Jr.

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1978

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Constitutional Guarantees And Protection Of Defendants' Rights: The Case Of New York, 1960-1978, Peter J. Galie

Buffalo 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 …

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

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Morrissey, the Court set the level of due process needed in parole revocations. Specifically, it held that the parolee facing •revocation has a right (a) to receive written notice of the claimed parole violations; (b) to hear the evidence against him; (c) to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation); (e) to have a neutral and detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) to be given …

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.

Smith V. Maryland, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Jackson V. Virginia, 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.

An Equitable Treatment Of Unauthorized Prosecutorial Promises Of Immunity, Sherry Perkins Bartley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure-Double Jeopardy-Government's Right To Appeal A Midtrial Dismissal- United States V. Scott

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bordenkircher V. Hayes: Prosecutorial Discretion During Plea Bargaining, Alan M. Wishnoff

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Cases, Daniel P. Smith, R. Michael Moore

Vanderbilt Law Review

Courts Split on the Necessity of Separate Authorization for a Covert Entry Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

Daniel Paul Smith

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,' which regulates the use of electronic surveillance, was designed to protect "the privacy of wire and oral communications,"and to delineate "on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized."' In general, communications may be intercepted only by law enforcement officers, who are engaged in the investigation of …

Weatherford V. Bursey, George Robert Dittrich

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preventive Detention And Equal Protection Of The Law In Texas., Mark Stevens

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Constitutional Law - Corrections - Prisoners' Constitutional Right Of Access To Courts Imposes Duty On State To Provide Prison Law Libraries, Amanda M. Shaw

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

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.