Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (200)
- Universitas Indonesia (121)
- University of Michigan Law School (102)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (70)
- University of Richmond (34)
-
- William & Mary Law School (31)
- The University of Akron (17)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (14)
- St. John's University School of Law (13)
- Fordham Law School (12)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (10)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (10)
- Cleveland State University (9)
- Roger Williams University (9)
- St. Mary's University (9)
- American University Washington College of Law (8)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (8)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (8)
- Notre Dame Law School (8)
- Brooklyn Law School (7)
- Columbia Law School (7)
- Emory University School of Law (7)
- UIC School of Law (7)
- University of Baltimore Law (7)
- Georgia State University College of Law (6)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (6)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (6)
- University of Washington School of Law (6)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (6)
- New York Law School (5)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (87)
- United States Supreme Court (72)
- Constitution (56)
- Death penalty (44)
- Federal (43)
-
- State (40)
- Capital punishment (37)
- Eighth Amendment (34)
- New York (32)
- Sentencing (31)
- Criminal Law (30)
- Criminal law (30)
- 1990) (29)
- Defendant (29)
- Fourth Amendment (27)
- N.Y. Cont. Art. I (25)
- Sixth Amendment (25)
- Court of Appeals (24)
- Law (22)
- Due process (20)
- Evidence (20)
- Police (20)
- § 6 (18)
- Fifth Amendment (17)
- Punishment (16)
- Criminal (15)
- Jury (15)
- Privacy (14)
- Judge (13)
- Appellate Division (12)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (197)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- Touro Law Review (65)
- Michigan Law Review (59)
- University of Richmond Law Review (29)
-
- Supreme Court Preview (25)
- Articles (23)
- Akron Law Review (16)
- Faculty Scholarship (12)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (10)
- Faculty Publications (10)
- Scholarly Articles (10)
- All Faculty Scholarship (8)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (8)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (8)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (8)
- Cleveland State Law Review (7)
- Faculty Articles (7)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (7)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (7)
- UIC Law Review (7)
- Fordham Law Review (6)
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (6)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (6)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
- Washington Law Review (6)
- Northwestern University Law Review (5)
- Faculty Publications By Year (4)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (4)
- Maine Law Review (4)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 781 - 810 of 851
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Prisoners' Rights, Timothy Zick
The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro
The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), an exception to the rule against admission of hearsay, permits introduction of public records or reports containing the fact findings of the reporter without requiring the reporter to appear at trial. These fact findings can be based upon the reporter's own observations and calculations or information imparted to the reporter from sources having no connection to any public agency whatsoever. Rule 803(8)(C) has also been used as the vehicle for presenting juries with fact findings from hearings conducted by public officials. The rule would seem to allow these fact findings even though the opponent had …
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Foreiture, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (1990), Stephen M. Kightlinger
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Foreiture, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (1990), Stephen M. Kightlinger
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association
The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz
A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas
Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Challenging The Death Penalty Under State Constitutions, James R. Acker, Elizabeth R. Walsh
Challenging The Death Penalty Under State Constitutions, James R. Acker, Elizabeth R. Walsh
Vanderbilt Law Review
Death penalty litigation that reaches the Supreme Court now causes at least as much consternation as hope among opponents of capital punishment. Simply not losing rights that once were considered secure can be tantamount to victory in capital cases decided by the Court,and few defendants and opponents of capital punishment expect much more. It was not always so. Hopes were once high that the Supreme Court, and the federal courts generally, would effectively bring an end to capital punishment in America.
That prospect is now remote, at best. Death row populations are sky rocketing and executions are on the rise. …
Arizona V. Roberson: The Supreme Court Expands Suspects' Rights In The Custodial Interrogation Setting, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 685 (1989), Thomas N. Radek
Arizona V. Roberson: The Supreme Court Expands Suspects' Rights In The Custodial Interrogation Setting, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 685 (1989), Thomas N. Radek
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mccleskey V. Kemp: The Supreme Court Pulls The Switch On Future Judicial Challenges To The Death Penalty, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (1988), William H. Jones
Mccleskey V. Kemp: The Supreme Court Pulls The Switch On Future Judicial Challenges To The Death Penalty, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (1988), William H. Jones
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Plea Bargaining And The Supreme Court, Loftus Becker
Plea Bargaining And The Supreme Court, Loftus Becker
Faculty Articles and Papers
No abstract provided.
Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin
Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Salerno Challenge To The Bail Reform Act Of 1984, Aba Heiman
The Salerno Challenge To The Bail Reform Act Of 1984, Aba Heiman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Denying The Crime And Pleading Entrapment: Putting The Federal Law In Order, Richard C. Insalaco, Peter G. Fitzgerald
Denying The Crime And Pleading Entrapment: Putting The Federal Law In Order, Richard C. Insalaco, Peter G. Fitzgerald
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The federal law of procedure in entrapment cases is in profound disarray. Despite four attempts over the past fifty years to clarify the law of pleadings in entrapment cases, the Supreme Court has yet to do so successfully. This Note focuses on these attempts, and analyzes the issue of whether to permit a defendant to plead entrapment while simultaneously denying the crime charged.
Part I reviews the historical development of the entrapment defense, the disagreement among the federal circuits with regard to alternative inconsistent defenses, and the arguments commentators have made for and against allowing alternative inconsistent defenses in entrapment …
Expert Services And The Indigent Criminal Defendant: The Constitutional Madate Of Ake V. Oklahoma, John M. West
Expert Services And The Indigent Criminal Defendant: The Constitutional Madate Of Ake V. Oklahoma, John M. West
Michigan Law Review
This Note attempts to define the boundaries of the indigent criminal defendant's constitutional right to expert assistance, in the light of Ake v. Oklahoma. Part I briefly reviews the Ake decision and examines its constitutional background. Part II inquires into Ake's implications for experts other than psychiatrists and in contexts other than the insanity defense, arguing that the principles that guided the Ake decision have validity well beyond the facts of that case. Part III asks whether the Ake doctrine should be limited to capital cases. Rejecting such a limitation, it concludes that the right to expert assistance …
The Capital Punishment Conundrum, Eric Schnapper
The Capital Punishment Conundrum, Eric Schnapper
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Life in the Balance: Procedural Safeguards in Capital Cases by Welsh S. White
Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton
Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.
New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler
New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Berger's Defense Of The Death Penalty: How Not To Read The Constitution, Hugo Adam Bedau
Berger's Defense Of The Death Penalty: How Not To Read The Constitution, Hugo Adam Bedau
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Death Penalties: The Supreme Court's Obstacle Course by Raoul Berger
The Death Penalty In America, Michigan Law Review
The Death Penalty In America, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Death Penalty in America (Third Edition) by Hugo Adam Bedau
Extraordinary Writ Practice In Criminal Cases: Analogies For The Military Courts, Edward H. Cooper
Extraordinary Writ Practice In Criminal Cases: Analogies For The Military Courts, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
Extraordinary writs have two central functions in the hands of appellate courts. One is to enforce the court's mandate; there is no particular difficulty with this use of the writs, and no more need be said about it. The other function is to circumvent the ordinary channels of appellate review. In this function, writs operate as appeals in all but name. As this use has become more and more routine, it would be more appropriate to speak of them as "appeals writs" rather than extraordinary writs. My assignment is to speak of the experience with appeals writs in criminal cases …
The Federal Speedy Trial Act: Stampede Into Ambush, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 27 (1982), Robert L. Doyel
The Federal Speedy Trial Act: Stampede Into Ambush, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 27 (1982), Robert L. Doyel
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
The Faretta Principle: Self Representation Versus The Right To Counsel, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
The United States Constitution makes provision for criminal defendants to be represented by counsel. In the federal jurisdiction this principle was vigorously applied, even to indigent persons, very early in the Twentieth Century. The United States Supreme Court, however, was reluctant to impose this requirement on the states except in cases of unusual circumstances where the absence of counsel would have affected the basic fairness of the trial. Finally, in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the right to counsel applies in both federal and state cases. For the past twenty years, federal and state …
Commentary: Rummel V. Estelle: Mockingbirds Among The Brethren, Kenneth Lasson
Commentary: Rummel V. Estelle: Mockingbirds Among The Brethren, Kenneth Lasson
All Faculty Scholarship
In this commentary Professor Lasson discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Rummel v. Estelle and reveals a poignant personal memorandum that reflects the analysis of human values necessarily performed by whichever Justice cast the deciding vote.
Government Appeals In Criminal Cases: The 1978 Decisions, Edward H. Cooper
Government Appeals In Criminal Cases: The 1978 Decisions, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
The statute allowing the government to appeal from some forms of trial court defeat in criminal cases, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731, has a long and tangled history. In its 1970 opinion in United States v. Sisson 9ui the Supreme Court wrestled mightily with a difficult problem under the statute as it then stood, and invited Congress to amend "this awkward and ancient Act." Soon afterward the act was amended. It now provides in part that the government may appeal in a criminal case
from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to …
Pleas Of Guilty And The Loss Of Constitutional Rights: The Current Price Of Pleading Guilty, Stephen A. Saltzburg
Pleas Of Guilty And The Loss Of Constitutional Rights: The Current Price Of Pleading Guilty, Stephen A. Saltzburg
Michigan Law Review
This Article proposes the same basic rule as Westen's to explain the Supreme Court's decisions, but for very different reasons which require several modifications of the Westen rule. I argue that all the guilty-plea cases, properly viewed, are consistent with, and therefore can be read as evidence of, a theory more easily applied than articulated by the Court: that some constitutional rights are largely premised on notions of litigation avoidance, that their "avoidance" rationales must be respected, and that these rights therefore prevent governments from establishing procedural rules that force criminal defendants to go to trial-to choose more rather than …
Forfeiture By Guilty Plea--A Reply, Peter Westen
Forfeiture By Guilty Plea--A Reply, Peter Westen
Michigan Law Review
I will begin by describing what I think Professor Saltzburg and I both mean by a ''legal theory." I then apply that standard to test the validity of the two theories at issue here, first Professor Saltzburg's, then mine. I next discuss a third theory that is independent of both Professor Saltzburg's and mine, viz., that whether a constitutional claim survives a guilty plea depends on whether it is ''jurisdictional." Finally, I comment generally on the concept of forfeiture and its influence on the way one conceives of constitutional rights.