Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Williams V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 528,450 S.E.2d 365 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Strickler V. Murray 249 Va. 120, 452 S.E.2d 648 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Not Holding The Balance Nice, Clear And True: The Right To An Impartial Judge, John M. Delprete

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Tenth Circuit: Playing By The Rules, Keith M. Harrison

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "In 1994, the Tenth Circuit published more than four dozen opinions construing the guidelines and joined the majority of circuits in adopting the "One- Book" rule. The Court continued to refrain from interfering with the exercise of discretion by district judges, but made clear that it does not give district courts carte blanche.

Four issues in decisions covered in this review are the retroactive application of amendments to the guidelines; the standards used in characterizing a defendant as a major or minor player for purposes of increasing or decreasing the sentence; the impact of post-arrest efforts at rehabilitation on …

Schlup V. Delo 115 S. Ct. 851 (1995) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Stockton V. Murray 41 F.3d 920 (4th Cir. 1994) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Weeks V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 460, 450 S.E.2d 379 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Cardwell V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 501, 450 S.E.2d 146 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Wilson V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 95, 452 S.E.2d 669 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Beating A Potential Deathtrap: How To Preserve The Appellate Record For Federal Review And Avoid Virginia's Procedural Default, Kristopher E. Ahrend

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Leaving No Stone Unturned: Alternative Methods Of Discovery In Capital Cases, Timothy B. Heavner

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Burket V. Commonwealth: Don't Put All Your Defense Eggs In The Suppression Basket, Jody M. Bieber

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The "New And Improved" Federal Death Penalty: A Brief Guide, Peter F. Morgan

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Critiquing The Legal Order In The Name Of “Critical Morality”, Julius Cohen

Cardozo Law Review

The moral criticism of the legal order has been a longtime sport (serious), if not an industry, for law teachers, theorists, judges, and other legal functionaries. In the process, they often reach for criteria beyond those utilized in conventional morality. Sometimes the reach "beyond" is ad hoc; sometimes it is accompanied by an awareness that it is toward a pattern of a higher-level, critical morality. The reach beyond is often triggered by a need to resolve conflicts within conventional morality. Or it is a function of the distrust of some of the sources of conventional morality, such as prejudice, unrefined …

Suggestions For Circuit Court Review Of Local Procedures, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reply: Self-Incrimination And The Constitution: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Kamisar, Akhil Reed Amar, Renée B. Lettow

Michigan Law Review

A Reply to Yale Kamisar's Response to the "Fifth Amendment Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause"

Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article addresses the connection between privacy-based limits on police authority and substantive limits on government power as a general matter. Part II briefly addresses the effects of that connection on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law, both past and present. Part ID suggests that privacy protection has a deeper problem: it tends to obscure more serious harms that attend police misconduct, harms that flow not from information disclosure but from the police use of force. The upshot is that criminal procedure would be better off with less attention to privacy, at least as privacy is defined in …

Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, Akhil Reed Amar, Renée B. Lettow

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this article, we examine the global puzzle of the Self-Incrimination Clause and the local confusion or perversion lurking behind virtually every key word and phrase in the clause as now construed. In Part II we elaborate our reading of the clause and show how it clears up the local problems and solves the overall puzzle.

Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman

Michigan Law Review

A Response to William J. Stuntz's "Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure"

Reply, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

A Reply to Louis Michael Seidman's Response

On The 'Fruits' Of Miranda Violations, Coerced Confessions, And Compelled Testimony, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Ms. Renee B. Lettow have written a lively, provocative article that will keep many of us who teach constitutional-criminal procedure busy for years to come. They present a reconception of the "first principles" of the Fifth Amendment, and they suggest a dramatic reconstruction of criminal procedure. As a part of that reconstruction, they propose, inter alia, that at a pretrial hearing presided over by a judicial officer, the government should be empowered to compel a suspect, under penalty of contempt, to provide links in the chain of evidence needed to convict him.

Bouncing "Checkbook Journalism": A Balance Between The First And Sixth Amendments In High-Profile Criminal Cases, James R. Cady

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Legislation recently enacted in California attempts to preserve further the right of the accused to a fair trial and the integrity of judicial proceedings by allowing criminal prosecution of jurors and witnesses who would enter agreements for or accept payment, benefit, or other consideration in exchange for information pertaining to criminal trials. This note analyzes the constitutionality of this legislation through an evaluation and a balancing of the rights and interests of the accused, the jurors, the witnesses, the press, and the public implicated in criminal trials. Despite supporting compelling governmental interests, certain portions of the statutes are too broad, …

People V. Hicks: Sentencing Laws And Sex Offenses - A Disingenuous Approach By The California Supreme Court, Michael A. Barmettler

San Diego Law Review

This Casenote questions the holding in People v. Hicks, a California Supreme Court decision in December 1993, which held that sex offenders are subject to multiple full-term consecutive sentences for both non-sex and sex offenses. The author argues that this decision exceeds the interpretive limits of the sex offender sentencing statutes in California. Based on a potentially applicable statutory prohibition regarding multiple punishments, this holding is criticized for abusing the court's interpretive authority. In addition, this decision is argued to open the door to a potential dramatic increase in sentences that the legislature never intended.

New Formula For Peremptory Challenges: Xx=Xy, Susan Y. Soong

Circles: Buffalo Women's Journal of Law and Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Davis V. United States: The Supreme Court Rejects A Third Layer Of Prophylaxis, Nancy M. Kennelly

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

People V. Fitzpatrick: The Path To Amending The Illinois Constitution To Protect Child Witnesses In Criminal Sexual Abuse Cases, Thomas Conklin

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Epilogue: Making Reconceptualization Of Violence Against Women Real, Elizabeth M. Schneider

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sentencing And Cultural Differences: Banishment Of The American Indian Robbers, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 239 (1995), Stephanie J. Kim

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Discretion Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House, William J. Powell, Michael T. Cimino

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.