Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Volume 02 (Part 2 Of 6), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 06 (Part 2 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 05 (Part 3 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 05 (Part 2 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 04 (Part 2 Of 2), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 03 (Part 3 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 03 (Part 2 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 02 (Part 5 Of 6), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 02 (Part 4 Of 6), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 02 (Part 3 Of 6), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 01 (Part 5), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 01 (Part 2), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 01 (Part 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 09 (Part 1 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 07 (Part 1 Of 4), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 06 (Part 1), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 05 (Part 1 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 02 (Part 1 Of 6), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 01 (Part 1 Of 5), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 07 (Part 2 Of 4), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Volume 06 (Part 3 Of 3), Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Fred Ahmed Evans: Trial record transcript, 1969

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—Denial Of Counsel And Failure To Provide Adequate Warnings Regarding Constitutional Rights Have Important Bearing On Confessions Which Are Tested Under The Totality Of Circumstances., Edwin H. Wolf

Buffalo Law Review

Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519 (1968).

Jury Consideration Of Parole, Fernand N. Dutile

Journal Articles

Under our system of criminal justice, a jury faces two basic decisions: the determination of guilt and, in many cases, the selection of an appropriate penalty for the convicted. In both instances the jurors' impressions of the parole system could be crucial. For example, the jury's notion—correct or incorrect—that the defendant will be eligible for parole very quickly if sentenced to prison may cause it to compromise on the issue of guilt. In cases where the jury has discretion in setting the penalty, this notion may seduce it into selecting the death penalty over life imprisonment.

There are additional problems …

"Uncontrollable" Actions And The Eighth Amendment: Implications Of Powell V. Texas, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

No questions of criminal justice are more fundamental than the bases for imposing criminal punishment, yet the Federal Constitution says nothing explicit about them. It is, therefore, understandable that the increasing limitations imposed by constitutional interpretation upon procedures for ascertaining criminal guilt have not been accompanied by similar limits upon principles of criminal responsibility. That the difference in treatment is understandable does not, of course, necessarily mean it has been justified.

When the Court struck down a law punishing addiction in Robinson v. California in 1962, it was still unclear whether it was willing to become significantly implicated in developing …

Juvenile Justice - Unlawful Extrajudicial Confession Excluded Under Miranda - Testimonial In-Court Confession "Impelled" By The Admission Of The Invalid Confession Into Evidence. In Re Teters. (Cal. 1958), Edward J. Pulaski Jr.

San Diego Law Review

This recent case discusses In re Teters. (Cal. 1958).

Criminal Justice In Extremis: Administration Of Justice During The April 1968 Chicago Disorder, Mark N. Aaronson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law--Plea Bargaining, Larry Andrew Winter

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law--Misdemeanors--Indigent's Right To Appointed Counsel, John Charles Lobert

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Science And Morality Of Criminal Law, Jerome Hall

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Marijuana And The Law: The Constitutional Challenges To Marijuana Laws In Light Of The Social Aspects Of Marijuana Use, Mark S. Dichter

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.