Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Shadwick V. Tampa, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Apodoca V. Oregon, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Kois V. Wisconsin, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …

Criminal Procedure—Constitutional Right To Counsel In Parole Revocation Hearing, Clarence J. Sundram

Buffalo Law Review

People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Greenhaven State Prison, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 267 N.E.2d 238, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1971).

Judicial Problems In Administering Court Appointment Of Counsel For Indigents

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Counsel At Photographic Identifications

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Authorization Of Warrantless Wiretapping By The President In National Security Matters Involving Domestic Dissidents., William F. Mcquillen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purposes behind collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and the current effectiveness of the two doctrines in light of these policies and purposes. The policies of the double jeopardy guarantee are well defined in the federal cases. Basically, it is recognized that the state, having at hand many more resources than the average defendant can muster, should not be allowed to make successive attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Successive prosecutions cause the defendant expense and embarrassment and force him to live …

Intrusion Into The Body, William G. Eckhardt

Faculty Works

The thesis of this article is that the rights of servicemen should be protected with the search and seizure concepts of the fourth amendment rather than with the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination when intrusive bodily searches are required. The Supreme Court enunciated standard for intrusion into the body found in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The subsequent application of this standard in the federal courts, and its adoption in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, (Rev.) are explored. Federal court decisions discussing the privilege against self-incrimination are contrasted with opinions of the Court of Military Appeals …

The Legal Controversy As It Relates To Correctional Institutions - A Prison Administrator's View, Joseph R. Brierley

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Prisoners' Rights And The Correctional Scheme: The Legal Controversy And Problems Of Implementation, Joseph R. Brierley, Victor Rabinowitz, Edmund B. Spaeth Jr., James D. Crawford

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Prisoner's Rights And The Correctional Scheme: The Legal Controversy And Problems Of Implementation - A Symposium - Introduction, Donald W. Dowd

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Chamber V. Maroney: New Dimensions In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Stephen H. Paul

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Abandonment In The Law Of Search And Seizure: An Application Of Misdirected Emphasis, Edward G. Mascolo

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prison Reform In The Future - The Trend Toward Expansion Of Prisoners' Rights, Monrad G. Paulsen

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Courts' Responsibility For Prison Reform, Edmund B. Spaeth Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Prisoners' Rights - A Prosecutor's View, James D. Crawford

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Expansion Of Prisoners' Rights, Victor Rabinowitz

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Correctional Institution As A Rehabilitation Center - A Former Inmate's View, Victor Taylor

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Warrantless Searches And Seizures, Mack Allen Player

Scholarly Works

The fourth amendment to the Constitution has two basic clauses. The first, the reasonableness clause, protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The second, the warrant clause, sets forth conditions under which a warrant may issue. Searches and seizures made pursuant to a warrant are, quite obviously, governed by the commands of the warrant clause. However, the effect of the warrant clause upon searches and seizures made without warrants is not clear from the amendment itself, and the Supreme Court has failed to develop a consistent interpretation of the proper role of that clause.

The Grand Jury As The New Inquisition, Michael E. Tigar, Madeline R. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Secret Foreign Bank Account And Legitimate Alternatives, Charles W. Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

The author, a member of the California State Bar and consultant, Euro-Dutch Trust Company, George Town, Grand Cayman, B. W. I., labels the use of the secret foreign bank account "foolish and lazy." He suggests that the taxpayer can reduce his tax bite through tax deferral planning, an area in which legislation has been continued and expanded.

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Civil Rights--Personal Injury--Intent to Injure Is Not a Prerequisite to Recovery for Police Abuse Under Section 1983

===============================

Constitutional Law--Abortion--Statute Prohibiting Abortion of Unquickened Fetus Violates Mother's Constitutional Right of Privacy

===============================

Constitutional Law--Obscenity--State Statute Allowing Injunction Against Dissemination of Allegedly Obscene Material Prior to Adversary Hearing Not Violative of First Amendment

===============================

Constitutional Law--Right of Privacy--State Statute Requiring Disclosure of All Substantial Financial Interests of Public Officials is Overbroad and an Unconstitutional Invasion of Privacy

===============================

Constitutional Law--Sixth Amendment--Admission of Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence Does Not Violate Right of Confrontation

===============================

Criminal Procedure--Search and Seizure--Warrantless Search of …

Statutory Presumption Of Illegal Importation Of Cocaine Is Unconstitutional., Ricardo D. Palacios

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Assistance In Addition To Counsel For Indigent Defendants: The Need For, The Lack Of, The Right To, Dennis W. Alexander

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Juveniles And Their Right To A Jury Trial, Timothy E. Foley

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Prosecutions By Both A City And A State For An Identical Offense As A Violation Of The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy--Waller V. State, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Palko was specifically overruled to the extent that it was inconsistent with the Benton decision. Thus, the theories traditionally used to defend prosecutions by both a city and a state for the same offense must be examined to determine whether they are still valid when the fifth amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy is applied to state proceedings. This Recent Development examines the implications of the Benton decision for those theories.