Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (226)
- Universitas Indonesia (122)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (54)
- UIC School of Law (41)
- University of Michigan Law School (27)
-
- BLR (21)
- University of Richmond (18)
- Pepperdine University (15)
- St. Mary's University (10)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (10)
- West Virginia University (10)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (9)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (9)
- Brooklyn Law School (7)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (7)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (7)
- Georgia State University College of Law (6)
- Notre Dame Law School (5)
- University of Colorado Law School (5)
- Brigham Young University Law School (4)
- University of Maine School of Law (4)
- University of Missouri School of Law (4)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (4)
- American University Washington College of Law (3)
- Fordham Law School (3)
- Roger Williams University (3)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (3)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- Keyword
-
- Legislation (53)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (29)
- Criminal law (22)
- Constitutional Law (18)
- Law and Society (18)
-
- Sentencing (16)
- Law (15)
- Criminal justice (14)
- Evidence (13)
- Courts (12)
- Criminal procedure (12)
- Judges (12)
- Jurisprudence (12)
- Congress (11)
- Criminal Law (11)
- Due process (11)
- Privacy (11)
- Constitution (10)
- Fifth Amendment (10)
- Fourth Amendment (10)
- General Law (10)
- Supreme Court (10)
- International Law (9)
- Police (9)
- Politics (9)
- Practice and Procedure (9)
- West Virginia (9)
- Criminal justice system (8)
- Discrimination (8)
- Immigration (8)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (198)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- UIC Law Review (40)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (25)
- Cardozo Law Review (24)
-
- ExpressO (21)
- University of Richmond Law Review (18)
- Michigan Law Review (13)
- Pepperdine Law Review (13)
- Articles (12)
- Touro Law Review (10)
- West Virginia Law Review (10)
- The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice (8)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (7)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (7)
- Faculty Scholarship (7)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (6)
- Georgia State University Law Review (6)
- Faculty Publications (5)
- Indiana Law Journal (5)
- Publications (5)
- UMKC Law Review (5)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (5)
- BYU Law Review (4)
- Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution (4)
- Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (4)
- Maine Law Review (4)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (4)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (3)
- Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (3)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 601 - 630 of 692
Full-Text Articles in Legislation
Editor's Observations: The 2001 Economic Crime Package: A Legislative History, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Editor's Observations: The 2001 Economic Crime Package: A Legislative History, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Faculty Publications
On April 6, 2001, the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved a group of amendments to guidelines governing the sentencing of economic crimes. These measures, collectively known to as the “economic crime package,” are the culmination of some six years of deliberations by both the Conaboy and Murphy Sentencing Commissions working together with interested outside groups such as the defense bar, the Justice Department, probation officers, and the Criminal Law Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, The package contains three basic components. First, the now-separate theft and fraud guidelines, Sections 2B1.1 and 2F1.1, will be consolidated into a single guideline. Second, the …
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
"Can (Did) Congress 'Overrule' Miranda?, Yale Kamisar
"Can (Did) Congress 'Overrule' Miranda?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
I think the great majority of judges, lawyers, and law professors would have concurred in Judge Friendly's remarks when he made them thirty-three years ago. To put it another way, I believe few would have had much confidence in the constitutionality of an anti-Miranda provision, usually known as § 3501 because of its designation under Title 18 of the United States Code, a provision of Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Crime Act or the Crime Bill), when that legislation was signed by the president on June 19, …
Criminal And Civil Parental Liability Statutes: Would They Have Saved The 15 Who Died At Columbine?, Eric P. Ebenstein
Criminal And Civil Parental Liability Statutes: Would They Have Saved The 15 Who Died At Columbine?, Eric P. Ebenstein
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The note argues that current parental liability statutes in the United States are insufficient to hold parents accountable for their children's violent acts, such as the Columbine High School massacre. It advocates for strengthening these laws, particularly by adopting a negligence standard, to incentivize parents to monitor their children's activities more effectively and prevent such tragedies.
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …
Child Protection As A Judicial Burden On Religion And The Impact Of Religious Liberty Legislation, Robert J. Bruno
Child Protection As A Judicial Burden On Religion And The Impact Of Religious Liberty Legislation, Robert J. Bruno
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Independent Counsel Statute: A Premature Demise, Julian A. Cook Iii
The Independent Counsel Statute: A Premature Demise, Julian A. Cook Iii
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Practicing Medicine Without A License: Legislative Attempts To Mandate Chemical Castration For Repeat Sex Offenders, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 381 (1999), Lisa Keesling
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Bribery Statute And The Ethics Of Purchasing Testimony, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 209 (1999), Camille Knight
Federal Bribery Statute And The Ethics Of Purchasing Testimony, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 209 (1999), Camille Knight
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Is The Excessive Fines Clause Excessively Kind To Money Launderers, Drug Dealers, And Tax Evaders, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 243 (1999), Ann Jennings Maron
Is The Excessive Fines Clause Excessively Kind To Money Launderers, Drug Dealers, And Tax Evaders, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 243 (1999), Ann Jennings Maron
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande
Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Dutchess County: People V. Mcintosh
Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Dutchess County: People V. Mcintosh
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Right To A Speedy Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Coplin
Right To A Speedy Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Coplin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: Hynes V. Tomei Court
Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: Hynes V. Tomei Court
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Suffolk County: People V. Shulman
Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Suffolk County: People V. Shulman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Path To Habeas Corpus Narrows: Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1), Sharad Sushil Khandelwal
The Path To Habeas Corpus Narrows: Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1), Sharad Sushil Khandelwal
Michigan Law Review
The enforcement of the U.S. Constitution within the criminal justice system is an odd subspecies of constitutional law. In areas other than criminal law, federal courts act as the ultimate guarantors of constitutional rights by providing remedies whenever violations occur. Criminal law, however, is different by necessity; the bulk of criminal justice occurs in state courthouses, leaving constitutional compliance largely to state judges. The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, may review these decisions if it chooses, but a writ of certiorari can be elusive, especially given the Court's shrinking docket. After World War II, however, this feature of criminal constitutional …
America Tries To Come To Terms With Terrorism: The United States Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996 V. British Anti-Terrorism Law And International Response, Roberta Smith
Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
The note examines the legal and policy responses to terrorism, focusing on the tension between combating terrorism effectively and safeguarding civil liberties. It critiques the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and comparable international measures, arguing that while these laws aim to address the growing threat of terrorism, they risk infringing on constitutional rights and international cooperation. The analysis highlights the challenges of balancing security concerns with democratic values and the need for coordinated global strategies to counter terrorism.
Habeas Corpus And The New Federalism After The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 337 (1997), Marshall J. Hartman, Jeanette Nyden
Habeas Corpus And The New Federalism After The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 337 (1997), Marshall J. Hartman, Jeanette Nyden
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
New Opportunities For Defense Attorneys: How Record Preservation Requirements After The New Habeas Bill Require Extensive And Exciting Trail Preparation, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1997), Andrea D. Lyon
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton
No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Intruders At The Death House: Limiting Third-Party Intervention In Executive Clemency, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 567 (1997), Daryl M. Schumacher
Intruders At The Death House: Limiting Third-Party Intervention In Executive Clemency, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 567 (1997), Daryl M. Schumacher
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reflections On A Quarter-Century Of Constitutional Regulation Of Capital Punishment, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 399 (1997), Joseph Bessetre, Stephen Bright, George Kendall, William Kunkle, Carol Steiker, Jordan Steiker
Reflections On A Quarter-Century Of Constitutional Regulation Of Capital Punishment, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 399 (1997), Joseph Bessetre, Stephen Bright, George Kendall, William Kunkle, Carol Steiker, Jordan Steiker
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Gacy V. Dahmer: An Informed Response, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 331 (1997), William J. Kunkle Jr.
Gacy V. Dahmer: An Informed Response, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 331 (1997), William J. Kunkle Jr.
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appendix To Guest Editor's Observations: A Proposal For A Consolidated Theft/Fraud Guideline, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Appendix To Guest Editor's Observations: A Proposal For A Consolidated Theft/Fraud Guideline, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Faculty Publications
Professor Frank Bowman proposed the following consolidated theft/fraud guideline to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in October 1997. The proposal is explained in detail in a forthcoming law review article, Coping With Loss”: A Re-Examination of Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Under the Guidelines, 51 Vanderbilt L. Rev. -- (April 1998).
Death Penalty: A Philosophical And Theological Perspective, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (1997), Walter Berns, Nancy Bothne, William Bowers, Richard Dieter, Richard Land, James Lund, Austin Sarat
Death Penalty: A Philosophical And Theological Perspective, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (1997), Walter Berns, Nancy Bothne, William Bowers, Richard Dieter, Richard Land, James Lund, Austin Sarat
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Ex Post Facto Laws: Supreme Court New York County People V. Griffin (Decided December 5, 1996
Ex Post Facto Laws: Supreme Court New York County People V. Griffin (Decided December 5, 1996
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Clipper Chip Proposal: Deciphering The Unfounded Fears That Are Wrongfully Derailing Its Implementation, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (1996), Howard S. Dakoff
The Clipper Chip Proposal: Deciphering The Unfounded Fears That Are Wrongfully Derailing Its Implementation, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (1996), Howard S. Dakoff
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Quality Of Mercy Must Be Restrained, And Other Lessons In Learning To Love The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Quality Of Mercy Must Be Restrained, And Other Lessons In Learning To Love The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Faculty Publications
In the remarks that follow, I do four things. First, for those unfamiliar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I begin by explaining briefly how the Guidelines work. Second, I endeavor to show why Judge Cabranes is wrong, absolutely wrong in declaring the Guidelines a failure, and mostly wrong in the specific criticisms he and others level against the Guidelines. Third, after jousting with Judge Cabranes a bit, I discuss some problems with the current federal sentencing system, most notably the sheer length of narcotics sentences. Finally, I comment briefly on some of the implications of the Guidelines, and the principles …
The Death Penalty And The Interstate Agreement On Detainers Act: A Proposal For Change, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 499 (1996), Edward G. Hild
The Death Penalty And The Interstate Agreement On Detainers Act: A Proposal For Change, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 499 (1996), Edward G. Hild
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Victim-Plaintiff In Criminal Trials And Civil Law Responses To Sexual Violence, Alexandra Goy
The Victim-Plaintiff In Criminal Trials And Civil Law Responses To Sexual Violence, Alexandra Goy
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The article examines the role of the victim-plaintiff in German criminal trials, particularly in cases involving sexual violence. It highlights the unique procedural rights granted to victim-plaintiffs, such as the ability to participate actively in trials and present evidence. However, the analysis reveals significant practical and systemic barriers that limit the effectiveness of this institution, including restrictive evidentiary rules, financial challenges, and gender biases within the judiciary. The article argues that while the victim-plaintiff institution offers opportunities for victims to seek justice, its impact is undermined by these obstacles, raising concerns about the protection of sexual autonomy and gender equality …