Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Summary Of Summers V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 112, Jason Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered after jury verdict, for first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and assault with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and assault with the use of a deadly weapon, and from sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Summary Of Johnson V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 113, Jason Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a death sentence and conviction by jury of four counts of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, among other crimes, after a death sentence entered by a three judge panel was appealed and vacated.

Summary Of Santana V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 121, Robert Stephens

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a conviction in the Eighth Judicial District Court of 19 counts of coercion resulting in five consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole and fourteen concurrently running life sentences. Appellant argues that the jury instructions did not instruct the jury to apply the reasonable person test and therefore seeks a new trial.

Summary Of Thomas V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 114, 148 P.3d 727, James Robertson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a death sentence following a second penalty hearing conducted pursuant to a remand by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Summary Of Rosas V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 106, Sherry Moore

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The district court convicted Appellant of committing battery upon an officer and rejected Appellant’s proffered jury instruction on the crime resisting a public officer, a lesser-included offense of battery upon an officer.s

Book Review, Erin Murphy

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Mitchell V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 107, Aubree Nielsen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from the denial of a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case.

Picking Up The Pieces Of The Gordian Knot: Towards A Sensible Merger Methodology, Bruce A. Antkowiak

ExpressO

This question of merger is one of the most perplexing that courts face in the criminal sentencing process. This article not only explores that question but proposes specific new methods a court may use to resolve this question in a way consonant with the Constitution and the intent of the legislature.

The article takes as its starting point a brilliant analysis of the Double Jeopardy doctrine set out by Professor Ann Poulin of Villanova Law School in an article entitled Double Jeopardy and Multiple Punishment: Cutting the Gordian Knot, 77 U. Colo. L. Rev. 595 (2006). Professor Poulin’s work demonstrates …

An Unprecedented Curtailment Of Liberty: Samson V. California And Its Gift Of A Limitless Blank Check For “Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Harassing” Searches And Seizures , Jillian Ostrove

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Milstein V. Chief Military Prosecutor, Edna Arbel, Aharon Barak, Edmond E. Levy

Translated Opinions

Facts: The appellant was convicted of the offence of using dangerous drugs while he was serving in the IDF. During his interrogation by the police, he confessed to using the drugs, but in his trial he pleaded not guilty and exercised his right to remain silent and not to testify in his own defence.

Following the case law of the Supreme Court, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a confession, even when it is freely and willingly given. ‘Something extra’ is required in order to convict him. The District Court Martial and the Appeals Court Martial …

Summary Of Calvin V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 100, Michelle L'Hommedieu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 178.400, Nevada's standard for a defendant's competency to stand trial, conforms to the standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States.

Child Statements In A Post-Crawford World: What The United States Supreme Court Failed To Consider With Regard To Child Victims And Witnesses, Allie Phillips

ExpressO

With the issuance of Crawford v. Washington, 514 U.S. 36 (2004), by the United States Supreme Court on March 8, 2004, wide spread confusion and concern swept through the nation’s prosecutorial community. The new rule announced in Crawford created too many questions and provided few answers by the Court. In particular, anxiety arose from the child protection community in regard to one primary issue: Are forensic interviews of child victims and witnesses, and other statements made by children, considered “testimonial statements” according to Crawford, thus requiring the child to take the witness stand? The Court further confused the new rule …

Detention For The Purpose Of Interrogation As Modern "Torture", Rinat Kitai-Sangero

ExpressO

Although the Court in Miranda stated that custodial interrogation is designed to undermine the will of the interogee, it has not prohibited the admission of confession given under such circumstances. It rather assumed that it is possible to dispel the pressures of a custodial interrogation by means of proper safeguards. The article claims that there is no plausible way to dispel the coercive atmosphere engendered by a custodial interrogation. Custody today constitutes a refined version of torture used in the past in order to extract confessions. Consequently, the confession of a suspect under circumstances of custodial interrogation is involuntary and …

Summary Of State V. Rincon, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 99, Michelle L'Hommedieu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A motorist is driving below the speed limit is, by itself, insufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated warranting an investigative stop. While reasonable suspicion is not a stringent standard, it requires more than a mere observation that a motorist is driving slowly. There must be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual behavior before a reasonable suspicion arises justifying an investigative stop. Where no reasonable suspicion exists, an inquiry stop may nonetheless be justified under the community caretaking doctrine when a police officer has an objectively reasonable belief that a slow driver is in …

Crumbs From The Master's Table: The Supreme Court, Pro Se Defendants And The Federal Guilty Plea Process, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

This Article will commence with a review of the rather significant evolution of Rule 11, including a review of several pertinent Supreme Court decisions that have helped shape its current structure. Thereafter, the predominant judicial methodology for conducting Rule 11 hearings will be discussed. Specifically, this Article will take a brief but critical look at, inter alia, the examination techniques employed by the judiciary when conducting Rule 11 hearings, and conclude that the process typically employed inadequately assesses whether a defendant's guilty plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Next, this Article will discuss two very recent Supreme Court decisions--United …

Taking Judicial Notice Of Genocide? The Problematic Law And Policy Of The Karemera Decision, Ralph Mamiya

ExpressO

On June 16, 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued a decision in Prosecutor v. Karemera taking judicial notice of the fact that genocide occurred in Rwanda in 1994. This decision startled many court observers. While no internationally respected commentator would today question whether the Rwanda genocide took place, should such an event be judicially noticed without evidence? This paper examines that question, arguing that the ICTR Appeals Chamber’s expansive use of judicial notice in Karemera was both illogical and unwise. Genocide, whether as an historical fact or legal charge, fails to meet the “common …

The Jurisdictional Heritage Of The Grand Jury Clause, Roger A. Fairfax

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Death Penalty Law, Therese M. Day

Mercer Law Review

This Article provides a survey of death penalty case law in Georgia from June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006. The cases include those that the Georgia Supreme Court heard on interim appeal, direct appeal, and on review of habeas corpus decisions. Two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court are also included because of their relevance to Georgia death penalty law. While there have been recent significant statutory changes affecting capital litigation in Georgia, those changes are beyond the purview of this Article and therefore will not be discussed. Likewise, holdings in capital cases that are common to …

Reaffirming The Right To Pretrial Assistance: The Surprising Little Case Of Fellers V. United States, James K. Tomkovicz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Strengthening The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel, Anne Bowen Poulin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Next Step In Interpreting Criminal Forfeiture, Avital Blanchard

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exactions: Exploring Exactly When Nollan And Dolan Should Be Triggered, Jane C. Needleman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Estes V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96, Michael Hammer

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a conviction, by jury, of two counts of preventing or dissuading a person from testifying or producing evidence, one count of first-degree kidnapping, two counts of battery with intent to commit a crime, six counts of sexual assault of a minor under 14, two counts of coercion, and two counts of lewdness with a child under 14. The primary issue on appeal was the admissibility of evidence gathered while the Appellant was committed to a mental institution for the purpose of evaluating competency to stand trial.

Death Penalty Jurisprudence In New York And The Supremacy Clause Of The United States Constitution: How Supreme Is It ?, Joseph E. Fahey

ExpressO

This article deals with the treatment of the Supremacy Clause by the New York Court of Appeals in the evolution of its death penalty jurisprudence. It traces the application of the Clause by the Court and its abandonment in its imposition of stronger guarantees under the New York State Constitution

The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing In The Post-Blakely Era, Douglas A. Berman, Steven L. Chanenson

Working Paper Series

Soon after the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington declared certain judicial fact-finding within a state sentencing guideline system unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor described the Court’s decision as a “Number 10 earthquake.” But two years after the Blakely ruling, the case’s broader impact and meaning for state criminal justice systems around the country has been largely overshadowed by developments in the federal sentencing system. Nevertheless, this is an exciting time for state sentencing. By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. Cunningham, this past spring, the Supreme Court brings state issues to the national stage once more.

State …

Two Constitutional Wrongs Do Not Make A Right: Double Jeopardy And Prosecutorial Misconduct Under The Brady Doctrine, Adam M. Harris

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unwarranted Disparity: Granting Fast-Track Departures In Non-Fast-Track Districts, Evan W. Bolla

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many appellate cases those that have the most significant precedential value. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes enacted by the General Assembly in the areas of criminal law and procedure.

Punishment, Prisons, And The Bible: Does "Old Testament Justice" Justify Our Retributive Culture?, Martin H. Pritikin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let The Jury Do The Waive: How Apprendi V. New Jersey Applies To Juvenile Transfer Proceedings, Daniel M. Vannella

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.