Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons^™

Graham V. Commonwealth 250 Va. 79,459 S.E.2d 97 (1995) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mickens V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 423, 457 S.E.2d 9 (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.

Chandler V. Commonwealth 249 Va. 270, 455 S.E.2d 219 (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 …

The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that witnesses who conspire with a state official to present perjured testimony at a judicial proceeding should not have absolute immunity from a section 1983 suit for damages. Part I provides background information on section 1983 and explains why a witness-state conspiracy satisfies the requirements of a section 1983 cause of action. Part I also summarizes the Supreme Court's doctrinal approach to section 1983 immunity. Finally, Part I examines two Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the issue of immunity for witness conspirators: Briscoe v. LaHue, and Malley v. Briggs. Part II applies the …

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

Burket V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 596,450 S.E.2d 124 (1994) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

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

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Ramdass V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 518, 450 S.E.2d 360 (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.

Wright V. Commonwealth 248 Va. 485, 450 S.E.2d 361 (1994) 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.

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

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Harris V. Alabama 115 S. Ct. 1031 (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.

Joseph V. Commonwealth 452 S.E.2d 862 (Va. 1995) 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.

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 …

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