Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Rule Of Announcement And Unlawful Entry: Miller V. United States And Ker V. California, G. Robert Blakey

Journal Articles

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in his classic dissent in United States v. Rabinowitz, pointed out that "the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people." Few cases decided by the Supreme Court since Rabinowitz have better illustrated that observation than Miller v. United States and Ker v. California. This Article will consider the problems posed in the administration of federal criminal justice by the "liberty forged" in these two decisions.

Until the Miller decision in 1958, the Supreme Court had never squarely considered and decided a question of announcement and unlawful entry. It is therefore …

Criminal Law--Disqualification Of Jurors, Fred Adkins

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Poverty And Criminal Justice, Arval A. Morris

Washington Law Review

A conflict of the ideal of equality with reality exists today. Although our society has been characterized as affluent, there exist many citizens for whom reasonable legal fees appear unreasonable or impossible.

Double Jeopardy Where Both City And State Prosecute The Same Act, L. William Houger

Washington Law Review

This comment's concern is the situation in which a municipality and a state each define the same conduct as criminal, and each, in a separate action prosecutes the same defendant for the same act. The sole question explored in this comment is whether there is, or should be, a bar, on the ground of double jeopardy, to city or state prosecutions where the other has prosecuted. An attempt has been made exhaustively to canvass the question and also the position of the state and federal courts.

Criminal Law And Procedure—Arrest For Misdemeanor Not Committed In Presence Of Officer Not Supportable By Evidence Seized Incident Thereto, Douglas P. Grawunder

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Caliente, 12 N.Y.2d 89, 184 N.E.2d 550, 236 N.Y.S.2d 945 (1962).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Right To Prompt Trial Not Lost By Incarcerated Prisoner Where Request For New Trial Not Forwarded To Prosecutor By Prison Authorities, William J. Kirk

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Masselli, 13 N.Y.2d 1, 191 N.E.2d 457, 240 N.Y.S.2d 976 (1963).

Admissibility Of Fingerprint Evidence And Constitutional Objections To Fingerprinting Raised In Criminal And Civil Cases, Andre A. Moenssens

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure—Search And Seizure Authorized As Incident To Lawful Arrest Despite Failure To State Authority And Cause, George P. Doyle

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 182 N.E.2d 92, 237 N.Y.S.2d 694 (1963).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Waiver Of Trial By Jury In Criminal Cases, James B. Denman

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Duchin, 12 N.Y.2d 351, 190 N.E.2d 17, 239 N.Y.S.2d 670 (1963).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Coram Nobis—Proper Remedy Where Defendant Has Been Wrongfully Prevented From Taking Of Perfecting An Appeal, Joseph S. Forma

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Adams, 12 N.Y.2d 417, 190 N.E.2d 529, 240 N.Y.S.2d 155 (1963).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Admissibility Of Exculpatory Portions Of A Defendant’S Statement After Incriminating Portions Have Been Allowed Into Evidence, William J. Kirk

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12, 186 N.E.2d 401, 234 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1962).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Coram Nobis And Exhaustion Of The Appellate Process, Carl B. Kustell

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Howard, 12 N.Y.2d 65, 187 N.E.2d 113, 236 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1962).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Coram Nobis As Proper Remedy For Testimony Not Perjured And Not Knowingly Used, Peter H. Bickford

Buffalo Law Review

People v. Robertson, 12 N.Y.2d 355, 190 N.E.2d 19, 239 N.Y.S.2d 673 (1963).

Criminal Law And Procedure—Coram Nobis Not To Be Granted Where No Showing That Perjured Testimony Was Used, Anthony S. Kowalski

Buffalo Law Review

People V. Romeo, 12 N.Y.2d 751, 186 N.E.2d 420, 234 N.Y.S.2d 224 (1962).

Involuntary Confessions And New York Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immunity From Service Of Nonresident Criminal Defendants

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—Admissibility Of Confessions, Michael D. Garvey

Washington Law Review

State v. Moore recently held that only two proper grounds exist for excluding a confession from evidence in a criminal trial: That it was obtained in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution or that it has not met the test provided by Washington statute. The Washington Constitution provides that, "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself . . ."' But the court held that this provision does not apply to the admissibility of confessions. The defendant had been convicted of second degree burglary and grand …

Criminal Law—Double Jeopardy, David W. Sandell

Washington Law Review

In State v. Connors, the Washington State Supreme Court held that a defendant had been placed in jeopardy when, sua sponte, a trial court erroneously declared a mistrial over his objection. A later retrial of the defendant therefore constituted double jeopardy.

The Indigent Defendant In The State Criminal Proceeding: Betts V. Brady Is Interred

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The New Michigan Pre-Trial Procedural Rules-Models For Other States?, Robert Meisenholder

Michigan Law Review

The new Michigan procedural laws are embodied in a revised set of statutes and court rules which became effective January 1, 1963, after a long period of study by a Joint Committee on Michigan Procedural Revision. They abolish an anachronistic distinction between procedures in law and equity, abrogate a scattered, disorganized set of rules and statutes, and create a unified, coherent procedural system.

Constitutional Law-Expatriation-Criminal Due Process As Prerequisite To Expatriation When Imposed As Punishment, John W. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

Respondents, native-born Americans, in two separate cases sought declaratory judgments confirming their status as United States citizens. One wanted to return to this country, and the other sought to avoid deportation as an alien. The Government claimed that respondents had lost their citizenship by operation of section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940 and its successor, section 349(a)(10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which automatically divest an American of his citizenship for "departing from or remaining outside the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or . . . national emergency for the purpose …

The Right To Counsel Prior To Trial In State Criminal Proceedings, Michael J. Osman

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Trial Of Co-Defendants--Right Of Silence Violated, Robert Edward Haden

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure Incidental To A Lawful Arrest, Gregory U. Evans

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confining Material Witnesses In Criminal Cases

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pre-Trial Discovery By The Prosecution In A Criminal Case

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutor's Reference To Parole In Argument To Jury

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admitting Lie-Detector Results By Stipulation

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protection Of Criminal Defendant From Prejudicial Publicity

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disposition Of Physical Exhibits Used In Criminal Trials

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.