Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (7290)
- Constitutional Law (3359)
- Courts (2373)
- Human Rights Law (1693)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1364)
-
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1364)
- Evidence (1359)
- Administrative Law (1190)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1168)
- Civil Law (1159)
- Rule of Law (1101)
- Internet Law (1096)
- Conflict of Laws (1082)
- Business Organizations Law (1071)
- International Trade Law (1068)
- Legal Education (1030)
- Supreme Court of the United States (948)
- State and Local Government Law (946)
- Energy and Utilities Law (943)
- Natural Resources Law (939)
- Law and Society (937)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (933)
- Agriculture Law (930)
- Election Law (920)
- Fourth Amendment (919)
- Air and Space Law (910)
- Jurisprudence (805)
- International Law (768)
- Institution
-
- Universitas Indonesia (881)
- University of Michigan Law School (808)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (795)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (645)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (399)
-
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (373)
- William & Mary Law School (343)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (331)
- Seattle University School of Law (275)
- University of Richmond (275)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (230)
- University of Washington School of Law (229)
- BLR (220)
- Columbia Law School (202)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (201)
- University of Kentucky (192)
- UIC School of Law (187)
- Mercer University School of Law (182)
- West Virginia University (182)
- American University Washington College of Law (179)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (155)
- Cornell University Law School (144)
- University of Colorado Law School (141)
- Brooklyn Law School (139)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (130)
- Pepperdine University (127)
- University of Maine School of Law (127)
- University of Georgia School of Law (123)
- University of Miami Law School (114)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (107)
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure (688)
- Criminal law (546)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (468)
- Criminal Procedure (391)
- Evidence (351)
-
- Capital punishment (286)
- Police (285)
- Death penalty (275)
- Sentencing (274)
- Fourth Amendment (270)
- Sixth Amendment (270)
- Criminal justice (269)
- Criminal Law (236)
- United States Supreme Court (236)
- Due process (231)
- Constitutional Law (224)
- Supreme Court (207)
- Fifth Amendment (206)
- Right to counsel (167)
- Constitution (154)
- New York (149)
- Jury (136)
- Prosecutors (135)
- Punishment (133)
- Juries (132)
- Testimony (129)
- Privacy (128)
- Constitutional law (125)
- Federal (125)
- Fourth amendment (124)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (760)
- Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan (723)
- Michigan Law Review (462)
- Articles (383)
- Touro Law Review (350)
-
- Cardozo Law Review (328)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (302)
- Faculty Publications (262)
- Public Interest Law Reporter (259)
- Seattle University Law Review (224)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (218)
- ExpressO (195)
- Buffalo Law Review (189)
- West Virginia Law Review (179)
- University of Richmond Law Review (178)
- Mercer Law Review (173)
- Capital Defense Journal (168)
- Kentucky Law Journal (165)
- Washington Law Review (160)
- UIC Law Review (153)
- Publications (132)
- Scholarly Articles (131)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (128)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (126)
- Maine Law Review (125)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (121)
- Scholarly Works (114)
- Pepperdine Law Review (111)
- All Faculty Scholarship (108)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 7051 - 7080 of 12064
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
The Waterloo For The So-Called Church Autonomy Theory: Widespread Clergy Abuse And Institutional Cover-Up, Marci A. Hamilton
The Waterloo For The So-Called Church Autonomy Theory: Widespread Clergy Abuse And Institutional Cover-Up, Marci A. Hamilton
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Recalibrating Depravity In A Feingold Regime: Why New York Courts Should Maintain Register'S Approach To Depraved Indifference In Cases Of Murder By Abuse, Carrie L. Maylor
Recalibrating Depravity In A Feingold Regime: Why New York Courts Should Maintain Register'S Approach To Depraved Indifference In Cases Of Murder By Abuse, Carrie L. Maylor
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Pardon Me, But Can You Open That Door?: The Potential Effects Of Pardons On Subsequent Civil Suits By Pardonees Under Malicious Prosecution And Section 1983 - A Disciplined Approach To State Pardon Law, Joseph D. Mueller
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Nay V. State, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35, Tyler James Watson
Summary Of Nay V. State, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35, Tyler James Watson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from a judgment of conviction, upon a jury verdict, of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.
Summary Of Witherow V. State, Bd. Of Parole Comm’Rs, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 33, Tyler Ure
Summary Of Witherow V. State, Bd. Of Parole Comm’Rs, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 33, Tyler Ure
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint that challenged a parole board proceeding under Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.‡Ìq
Criminal Law's "Mediating Rules": Balancing, Harmonization, Or Accident?, Michael T. Cahill
Criminal Law's "Mediating Rules": Balancing, Harmonization, Or Accident?, Michael T. Cahill
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Civil Disobedience And The Necessity Defense, John Alan Cohan
Civil Disobedience And The Necessity Defense, John Alan Cohan
The University of New Hampshire Law Review
[Excerpt] “This article will first examine the nature of civil disobedience, and distinguish between direct and indirect civil disobedience. Part II highlights some historical examples of civil disobedience. Part IV then examines the principles of the necessity defense, analyzing each of the elements that make up the defense, illustrated with cases on point. Next, Part V will turn to an analysis of several abortion-protest cases that raise issues different from other types of civil disobedience cases. Part VI then will examine Viet Nam era civil disobedience cases. Following that, Part VIII will explore a unique defense known as the Nuremberg …
Deterrence, Retributivism, And The Law Of Evidence, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein
Deterrence, Retributivism, And The Law Of Evidence, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein
Articles
Legal scholarship has long treated substantive criminal law and evidence as two separate and distinct fields. The former largely concerns itself with evaluating substantive criminal law rules by reference to various animating theories-most prominently, those of deterrence and retributivism.' Scholars, students, and policymakers laud or condemn doctrines based on notions of "just deserts" or ideas about the incentives they create for those disposed to commit a crime. When it comes to the numerous evidentiary and other rules that determine the course of prosecutions and proof, however, the conversation is different. Here, questions of reliability, evidential worth, and accuracy in fact-finding …
Mediating Rules In Criminal Law, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein
Mediating Rules In Criminal Law, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein
Articles
This Article challenges the conventional divide between substantive criminal law theory, on the one hand, and evidence law, on the other, by exposing an important and unrecognized function of evidence rules in criminal law. Throughout the criminal law, special rules of evidence work to mediate conflicts between criminal law's deterrence and retributivist goals. They do this by skewing errors in the actual application of the substantive criminal law to favor whichever theory has been disfavored by the substantive rule itself The mediating potential of evidentiary rules is particularly strong in criminal law because the substantive law's dominant animating theories-deterrence and …
Summary Of Gallegos V. State, 123 Nev. Advanced Opinion 31, Matthew Engle
Summary Of Gallegos V. State, 123 Nev. Advanced Opinion 31, Matthew Engle
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appellant Albert Gallegos was charged under NRS 202.360(1)(b),2 in 2004, with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after police arrested him at his home in Clark County and found a firearm inside that home. That charge was based on a 1998 felony warrant issued by a California superior court. The California court issued the warrant when Gallegos failed to appear for sentencing after pleading nolo contendere to seven felony charges. At his Nevada trial, Gallegos testified that he did not appear for his sentencing hearing because the California superior court told him when he entered his plea that …
Summary Of State V. Ruscetta, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 32, Krystallin Hernandez
Summary Of State V. Ruscetta, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 32, Krystallin Hernandez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from a district court’s order granting a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found by a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer during a consensual vehicle search.
Introduction To The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum, Russell L. Weaver
Introduction To The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum, Russell L. Weaver
San Diego Law Review
The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum was held at the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law on December 14, 2006. As with prior fora, the goal of this forum was to bring together a small group of prominent criminal procedure scholars to discuss matters of common interest. This year's forum focused on two topics: "confessions jurisprudence" and "the most underrated criminal procedure decision(s)."
The Supreme Court, Confessions, And Judicial Schizophrenia, Arnold H. Loewy
The Supreme Court, Confessions, And Judicial Schizophrenia, Arnold H. Loewy
San Diego Law Review
Schizophrenia literally means "split mind." Consequently, it should not be too surprising that the United States Supreme Court, which is a theoretically continuing body with nine ever-changing minds, would say things in one year that seem schizophrenic when contrasted with last year's jurisprudence. Unfortunately, many of the inconsistent statements remain good law, and the result largely depends on which doctrine the Court chooses to trot out. In this essay, four such statements and the extent that each should be taken will seriously be examined.
Miranda At Forty, Russell L. Weaver
Miranda At Forty, Russell L. Weaver
San Diego Law Review
In some respects, the Miranda decision was relatively uncontroversial because the Court did little more than require the police to inform suspects of their rights and prescribe procedures for the waiver of those rights. But Miranda's holding was not inevitable. In the Court's later decision in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the Court held that suspects can consent to searches of their persons or property even though they have not been informed that they have a Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent. A critic of Schneckloth might legitimately question how suspects can validly waive Fourth Amendment rights that they do not know …
Interrogating Terrorists: From Miranda Warnings To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Ronald J. Rychlak
Interrogating Terrorists: From Miranda Warnings To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Ronald J. Rychlak
San Diego Law Review
An American citizen arrested within the United States would certainly have the right not to incriminate himself. A foreign national arrested outside of the U.S. would presumably not be protected. Other scenarios present more difficult issues. American courts, therefore, have to determine whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies to non-American citizens, and whether an American police or military agent conducting an investigation abroad must provide some type of warnings before conducting an interrogation. The initial question would seem to be whether terrorist suspects are even entitled to the right protected by Miranda - the right not to incriminate …
Preventing False Confessions: Is Oickle Up To The Task?, Dale R. Ives
Preventing False Confessions: Is Oickle Up To The Task?, Dale R. Ives
San Diego Law Review
In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly stated that the Canadian confessions rule "should recognize which interrogation techniques commonly produce false confessions so as to avoid miscarriages of justice." As a result, the Court reformulated the traditional confessions rule in an attempt to better protect against false confessions. An obvious question is whether the Court succeeded in attaining this goal. An examination of the reformulated rule indicates that, viewed in the abstract and measured against the current state of knowledge on false confessions, the modern rule does offer considerable protection to innocent persons, but it also has …
Privacy As Struggle, Andrew R. Taslitz
Privacy As Struggle, Andrew R. Taslitz
San Diego Law Review
The title of this short essay is "Privacy as Struggle," a title meant in part to capture the Court's requirement of superhuman individual efforts to attain secrecy, that is, totally veiling one's activities from the state's prying eyes as an essential prerequisite to the existence of privacy, all too often at the expense of human relationships, interpersonal trust, and political voice. I want, therefore, to paint an apocalyptic vision of the Court's Fourth Amendment privacy jurisprudence, as the reader will no doubt have noticed I have already done in connection with my reading of Hoffa. I want to do so …
Truth, Justice, And The American Dilemma, Robert Batey
Truth, Justice, And The American Dilemma, Robert Batey
San Diego Law Review
McCleskey v. Kemp is without doubt a memorable case. Professor David C. Baldus and his colleagues, Charles A. Pulaski and George Woodworth, had produced a detailed statistical study of the operation of the death penalty in Georgia showing, in the words of the Supreme Court, that "black defendants, such as McCleskey, who kill white victims have the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty." McCleskey used this study to challenge his capital sentence under both the Equal Protection and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses. Like any statistical proof, the Baldus study had been challenged on methodological grounds. The Supreme Court …
Toward A More Robust Right To Counsel Of Choice, Janet C. Hoeffel
Toward A More Robust Right To Counsel Of Choice, Janet C. Hoeffel
San Diego Law Review
This Article takes its lead from the core principles of the right to counsel of choice expressed in Gonzalez-Lopez. These principles indicate that the right should include an indigent defendant's right to continue an attorney-client relationship established at some point in the past, and that, for both nonindigent and indigent defendants, the right to continue a trial with counsel of choice must be honored by trial courts unless it would be unethical or manifestly unjust to do so. This means that trial courts must almost always grant a continuance to accommodate that choice and could rarely deny such a request …
Justice Powell's Garden: The Ciraolo Dissent And Fourth Amendment Protection For Curtilage-Home Privacy, Catherine Hancock
Justice Powell's Garden: The Ciraolo Dissent And Fourth Amendment Protection For Curtilage-Home Privacy, Catherine Hancock
San Diego Law Review
It was not surprising that the majority opinion in Ciraolo provoked an impassioned dissent. The decision was unprecedented in sanctioning aerial surveillance as a police strategy for evading Fourth Amendment prohibitions of surveillance on the ground. The officers rented a plane because they did not have probable cause to obtain a warrant to enter and search the backyard, and because their attempts to peer into the yard were stymied by a tall fence. They could not crawl over the fence because that intrusion would violate the householder's protected expectation of privacy in his curtilage, the Fourth Amendment buffer zone of …
Smith V. Hooey: Underrated But Unfulfilled, Leslie W. Abramson
Smith V. Hooey: Underrated But Unfulfilled, Leslie W. Abramson
San Diego Law Review
The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial applies to prosecutions in the federal courts and to state prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. This constitutional right is probably the least favorite of the Bill of Rights, because it would satisfy most defendants if the government never - promptly or otherwise - disposed of their pending charges. One group of persons, though, who may regard the right to a speedy trial as important are convicted defendants currently serving sentences, but who have pending charges brought against them by other states or the federal government. For them, denying the …
International Criminal Jurisdiction In The Twenty First Century: Rediscovering United States V. Bowman, Ellen S. Podgor, Daniel M. Filler
International Criminal Jurisdiction In The Twenty First Century: Rediscovering United States V. Bowman, Ellen S. Podgor, Daniel M. Filler
San Diego Law Review
In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - far broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing …
Striking A Balance In Unlawfully Obtained Confession Cases: United Kingdom Pragmatism Against Principle, Jenny Mcewan
Striking A Balance In Unlawfully Obtained Confession Cases: United Kingdom Pragmatism Against Principle, Jenny Mcewan
San Diego Law Review
In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing so, …
The Prisoners’ (Plea Bargain) Dilemma, Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar
The Prisoners’ (Plea Bargain) Dilemma, Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
How can a prosecutor, who has only limited resources, credibly threaten so many defendants with costly and risky trials and extract plea bargains involving harsh sentences? Had defendants refused to settle, many of them would not have been charged or would have escaped with lenient sanctions. But such collective stonewalling requires coordination among defendants, which is difficult if not impossible to attain. Moreover, the prosecutor, by strategically timing and targeting her plea offers, can create conflicts of interest among defendants, frustrating any attempt at coordination. The substantial bargaining power of the resource-constrained prosecutor is therefore the product of the collective …
Addressing Sexual Violence Against Youth In Custody, Brenda V. Smith
Addressing Sexual Violence Against Youth In Custody, Brenda V. Smith
Presentations
No abstract provided.
Credibility: A Fair Subject For Expert Testimony?, Anne Poulin
Credibility: A Fair Subject For Expert Testimony?, Anne Poulin
Working Paper Series
This article explores the ways in which experts can assist the jury to assess the credibility of other witnesses and suggests analytical approaches to such expert testimony. The article argues that the courts should be more receptive to expert testimony bearing on witness credibility and engage in a more nuanced consideration of the role played by proffered expert testimony and how the role of the evidence affects its admissibility. Doing so should lead the courts to embrace the promise of the modern rules of evidence and permit experts to assist juries as they assess credibility.
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …
Georgia V. Randolph: What To Do With A Yes From One But Not From Two?, Nathan A. Wood
Georgia V. Randolph: What To Do With A Yes From One But Not From Two?, Nathan A. Wood
Mercer Law Review
In Georgia v. Randolph, the United States Supreme Court held that when an officer asks two physically present occupants of the same shared residence for permission to search, that search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when one occupant denies permission to search, though the other consents. In so holding, the Court created a new standard in which "widely held social expectations" dictate whether it is reasonable to assume an occupant has the authority to consent to a search.
Kansas V. Marsh: A Thumb On The Scale Of Death?, Elizabeth Brandenburg
Kansas V. Marsh: A Thumb On The Scale Of Death?, Elizabeth Brandenburg
Mercer Law Review
In Kansas v. Marsh, the United States Supreme Court held that it is not unconstitutional for a state's death penalty statute to require a death sentence when a sentencing jury finds aggravating and mitigating factors to be in equipoise. Extending its previous decision in Walton v. Arizona, the Court explicitly determined that this type of sentencing met the requirements of Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, holding that no other constraint is imposed by the Constitution. While the repercussions of this decision may not be widely felt, they do indicate the direction the Court is heading …
Summary Of Schuster V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23, Sherry Moore
Summary Of Schuster V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23, Sherry Moore
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus or prohibition on the ground that the District Court improperly denied petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and/or motion to dismiss the indictment based on the State’s improper refusal to instruct the grand jury on the law of self-defense.