The Right To Resist An Unlawful Arrest: Judicial And Legislative Overreaction?,
2015
The University of Akron
The Right To Resist An Unlawful Arrest: Judicial And Legislative Overreaction?, James B. Lindsey
Akron Law Review
THIS COMMENT will focus on the subject of the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The choice of this topic is the result of a change in the common law rule in a few key states which may herald the demise of this rule in all of the states. It is also of particular note that the State of Ohio has seen fit to alter its position on the common law rule recently.' In its essence, this writing will address itself to the clash between the American legal tradition of providing an effective legal remedy for every actionable harm or …
Admissibility Of Voiceprints Not Limited To "Corroborative Purposes" Unted States V. Franks,
2015
The University of Akron
Admissibility Of Voiceprints Not Limited To "Corroborative Purposes" Unted States V. Franks, R. Brent Chapman
Akron Law Review
ON FEBRUARY 12, 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided United States v. Franks,' affirming a district court ruling, which permitted the use of voiceprints for purposes of identification and marking the first occasion in which a circuit court had held such evidence admissible.
Proof Of Scienter In Criminal Obscenity Prosecutions,
2015
The University of Akron
Proof Of Scienter In Criminal Obscenity Prosecutions, James P. Edmiston
Akron Law Review
Beginning in 1957 with the landmark case of Roth v. United States, and continuing to the present, the courts and legislatures of this country have embarked on a determined, if somewhat confused, effort to prove Milton wrong. The social demand for the enactment and strict enforcement of obscenity laws, designed to remove both the material and its purveyors from society, has placed an enormous burden on the courts, which are charged with interpreting the vagaries of this country's obscenity laws as well as balancing the need for control of obscenity with constitutional freedoms.
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law,
2015
The University of Akron
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders
Akron Law Review
Senate Bill Number 42 was introduced into the Ohio General Assembly on February 1, 1977. The bill provides that while the burden of proof for all elements of the criminal offense with which an individual is charged rests upon the prosecution, the burden of proof for affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, and he must prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the bill raises serious questions concerning placing the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses generally, and self-defense in particular, on the defendant, a study of the law and policy involved in shifting …
Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York,
2015
The University of Akron
Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York, Lee Ann Johnson
Akron Law Review
The United States Supreme Court in Patterson v. New York upheld the constitutionality of a New York murder statute which places on the defendant the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance. The Court thereby determined that New York courts in applying the statute against defendant Gordon Patterson had not violated his right to due process of law
Let’S Not Forget: We Have A State Interest To Promote,
2015
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Let’S Not Forget: We Have A State Interest To Promote, Elias Arroyo
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance,
2015
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance, Kayla Robinson
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Public Danger,
2015
Yale Law School
Public Danger, James Dawson
Cardozo Law Review
This Article provides the first account of the term "public danger," which appears in the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Drawing on historical records from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Article argues that the proper reading of "public danger" is a broad one. On this theory, "public danger" includes not just impending enemy invasions, but also a host of less serious threats (such as plagues, financial panics, jailbreaks, and natural disasters). This broad reading is supported by constitutional history. In 1789, the first Congress rejected a proposal that would have replaced the phrase "public danger" in the …
Holding The Line: Customs And Border Protection's Expansion Of The Border Search Exception And The Ensuing Destruction Of Interior Fourth Amendment Rights,
2015
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Holding The Line: Customs And Border Protection's Expansion Of The Border Search Exception And The Ensuing Destruction Of Interior Fourth Amendment Rights, Hannah Robbins
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts,
2015
The University of Akron
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Akron Law Review
"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio,
2015
The University of Akron
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Akron Law Review
“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”
Newsroom: Hassel On Qualified Immunity,
2015
Roger Williams University
Newsroom: Hassel On Qualified Immunity, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
The Effect Of Jackson V. Virginia On Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Convictions,
2015
The University of Akron
The Effect Of Jackson V. Virginia On Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Convictions, David R. Parker
Akron Law Review
This comment will attempt to demonstrate that the faults complained of by the dissent are not substantial. On the contrary, the decision gives much-needed interpretation to an important aspect of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. However, the practical consequences of the employment of the Jackson standard are problematic.
Criminal Justice Act Of 1964; State Malpractice Suit Against Appointed Counsel; Ferri V. Ackerman,
2015
The University of Akron
Criminal Justice Act Of 1964; State Malpractice Suit Against Appointed Counsel; Ferri V. Ackerman, Sandra J. Branda
Akron Law Review
The United States Supreme Court in Ferri v. Ackerman reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and held that an attorney appointed by a federal judge to represent an indigent defendant in a federal criminal trial is not, as a matter of federal law, entitled to absolute immunity in a state malpractice suit brought against him by his former client. In a unanimous opinion, the Court decided that the function of appointed counsel is more closely analogous to that of private retained counsel, who enjoy no immunity from malpractice prosecution than to that of judges and prosecutors who have traditionally been accorded …
Motor Vehicles; Driving While Intoxicated; Section 4511.19; Implied Consent; Aurora V. Kepley,
2015
The University of Akron
Motor Vehicles; Driving While Intoxicated; Section 4511.19; Implied Consent; Aurora V. Kepley, Amie Bruggeman
Akron Law Review
With the constant problem of accidents caused by drinking drivers and the fairly reliable results of breathalyzer tests established, judicial decisions have upheld the statutory scheme providing for its use through an era when rights of an accused have been greatly expanded. It has been held that the breathalyzer test results are not testimonial but physical evidence and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, the accused has no constitutional right to refuse to take the test, and the prosecutor may comment at the trial on his refusal relying on its' probative value as to whether …
Release From Confinement Of Persons Acquitted By Reason Of Insanity In Ohio,
2015
The University of Akron
Release From Confinement Of Persons Acquitted By Reason Of Insanity In Ohio, Caryl A. Hess
Akron Law Review
The Court also held that the committing court, "... a tribunal composed of the judge of the court of common pleas of Allen county, the superintendent of the Lima state hospital, an alienist to be designated by said judge and superintendent, or a majority of them," can make the "restored to reason" determination and order release. This note focuses on the relationship between acquittal and release standards.
New Strategies For The Defense Of Capital Cases,
2015
The University of Akron
New Strategies For The Defense Of Capital Cases, Dennis N. Balske
Akron Law Review
Practically all capital defendants are poor people. Accordingly, the lawyer representing a capital defendant is usually court-appointed and has probably never tried a death case. In smaller communities, he or she may have represented a few criminal defendants, but does not specialize in criminal law. In larger metropolitan areas, overworked public defenders often times must shoulder the responsibilities of capital cases. Sobered by the possible sentence faced in the event of conviction, the defense lawyer seeks out new ideas, publications in the field, and practical advice or actual assistance from lawyers with expertise in trying capital cases. This article attempts …
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph,
2015
The University of Akron
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph, Edward P. Mazak
Akron Law Review
In some joint criminal trials the right of one defendant to refrain from self incrimination may come into conflict with the right of another defendant to confront the witnesses against him. The problem arises when one defendant refuses to testify at trial after having made a voluntary, out of court statement which tends to implicate a second defendant. The rules of evidence allow the statement to be introduced at trial only against the party making it; its use against the implicated defendant is excluded as hearsay.' The rules also provide for the court to instruct the jury on the limited …
Reparation Awards To Victims Of Crimes In Ohio,
2015
The University of Akron
Reparation Awards To Victims Of Crimes In Ohio, Catherine Petraglia
Akron Law Review
Ohio has taken steps to assist victims of crime by enacting Revised Code sections 2743.51-.72.1 It is the purpose of this comment to review the provisions of the Ohio law, comparing it with the statutes of other states and making a preliminary assessment of its impact, strengths, and weaknesses, based on approximately two years of experience with the law in its present form. Comparison will be made with the provisions of the Uniform Crime Victims Reparation Act, drafted and approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1973.
The Grand Jury: A Critical Evaluation,
2015
The University of Akron
The Grand Jury: A Critical Evaluation, Ovio C. Lewis
Akron Law Review
It seems in retrospect that our grand jury was a microcosm of grand juries generally in that many of the problems noted in the literature were manifest throughout our term. This supports the proposition that the weaknesses and defects of grand juries are not reflective of lack of zeal or devotion to duty on the part of individual members of the juries, but rather are indicative of systemic and institutional dysfunctionalities that are inherent in the grand jury system as it is presently constituted and organized. Thus, the critical comments that appear herein ought not to be taken as an …
