Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons^™

Cooper V. Oklahoma 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Lonchar V. Thomas 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Barnabei V. Commonwealth 1996 Wl 517733 (Va. 1996) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Goins V. Commonwealth 251 Va. 442, 470 S.E.2d 114 (1996) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Incredible Shrinking Writ: Habeas Corpus Under The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, Jeanne-Marie S. Raymond

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Alice In Wonderland Interpretations: Rethinking The Use Of Mental Mitigation Experts, Douglas S. Collica

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Maximizing Your Potential: The Effective Use Of Co-Counsel In A Capital Case, Courtney S. Townes

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Fry V. Commonwealth 250 Va. 413, 463 S.E.2d 433 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Litigating Jury Issues In Capital Trials: Constitutional Law And Virginia Procedures, Paula Dyan Effle

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Dna Evidence In Virginia, Steven M. Johnson

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Daubert And The Use Of Experts In Virginia Capital Cases, J. Conrad Garcia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking The Offensive: Proactive Use Of The Rules Of Evidence, Angela Dale Fields

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenging The Future Dangerousness Aggravating Factor, Michael H. Spencer

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

What To Do When You're Ambushed By Undisclosed Evidence Of Unadjudicated Acts To Show Future Dangerousness, Douglas S. Collica

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Consistently Inconsistent: The Supreme Court And The Confusion Surrounding Proportionality In Non-Capital Sentencing, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court's treatment of the Eighth Amendment with respect to claims of excessiveness regarding prison sentences. Specifically, it addresses the issue of whether and to what degree the Eighth Amendment requires that a punishment not be disproportional to the crime punished. In analyzing all of the modern holdings of the Court in this area, one finds significant fault with each. The result of this series of flawed opinions from the Supreme Court is that the state of the law with respect to proportionality in sentencing is …

Fact-Bargaining: An American Phenomenon, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Shaking The Foundation Of Gideon: A Critique Of Nichols In Overruling Baldasar V. Illinois, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 507 (1996), Ralph Ruebner, Jennifer Berner, Anne Herbert

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Excessive Criminal Justice Caseloads: Challenging The Conventional Wisdom, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Since the mid-1960s, no element of the criminal justice environment has received more attention and been accorded greater importance, in both popular and professional commentary, than has the pressure of heavy caseloads. The lack of sufficient resources to deal with overbearing caseloads has been widely characterized as the most pervasive and most critical administrative challenge faced by police, prosecutors, public defenders, and courts.' National commissions have regularly complained that the criminal justice system is "overcrowded, overworked, [and] undermanned," and must be given "substantially more money" to cure those ills if it is ever to perform all of the tasks assigned …

Mature Adjudication: Interpretive Choice In Recent Death Penalty Cases, Bernard Harcourt

Faculty Scholarship

Capital punishment presents a "hard" case for adjudication. It provokes sharp conflict between competing constitutional interpretations and invariably raises questions of judicial bias. This is particularly true in the new Republic of South Africa, where the framers of the interim constitution deliberately were silent regarding the legality of the death penalty. The tension is of equivalent force in the United States, where recent expressions of core constitutional rights have raised potentially irreconcilable conflicts in the application of capital punishment.

Two recent death penalty decisions – the South African Constitutional Court opinions in State v. Makwanyane and the United States Supreme …

Defending Duii Charges, Oregon Law Institute, Clarence E. Lankins, William Uhle, Robert G. Thuemmel, John Henry Hingson Iii, Erin K. Olson, Michael H. Marcus, John Powers, Nancy L. Macklin, Douglas A. Brown, Edward Jones, Frederick Lenzser

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the October 6, 1995 Program in Portland

Barnes V. Thompson 58 F.3d 971 (4th Cir. 1995) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Fitzgerald V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 299, 455 S.E.2d 506 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Royal V. Commonwealth 250 Va. 110, 458 S.E.2d 575 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Virginia's New State Habeas: What Every Attorney Needs To Know, Gregory J. Weinig

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Mandatory Arrest Law: Police Reaction, Kevin Walsh

Pace Law Review

The mandatory arrest requirement in certain domestic violence situations is unique, due to the fact that no other class of offense requires arrest. The Criminal Procedure Law states that a police officer "may arrest" for all other classes of offenses. The new subdivision states that a police officer "shall arrest a person, and shall not attempt to reconcile the parties or mediate .... ." The use of the word "shall," in contrast to "may," indicates obligation or necessity. Why has this class of offenses been singled out for mandatory arrest? What factors brought this mandatory arrest law about?

The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.

Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …

Chopping Miranda Down To Size, Michael Chertoff

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Confessions, Truth, and the Law by Joseph D. Grano

Improving Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution by Craig M. Bradley

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.