Surprise Symphony: The Supreme Court’S Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 2002 Term,
2014
Brooklyn Law School
Surprise Symphony: The Supreme Court’S Major Criminal Law Rulings Of The 2002 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future,
2014
Touro Law Center
Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
State V. Melisron, Ltd.,
2014
Supreme Court of Israel
State V. Melisron, Ltd., Elyakim Rubinstein, Daphne Barak-Erez, Uzi Vogelman
Translated Opinions
Appeals on judgments on the District Court in an affair of securities fraud, in which Golan Madar, Eliyahu Haelyon, Ofer Investments Ltd. and Ofer Development were convicted, and both Melisron, Ltd. and Avraham Levi was acquitted due to reasonable doubt. We are concerned with two primary issues: 1) Should a person be convicted of the offense of manipulation under section 54(a)(2) of the Securities Law if it was found that his actions were motivated by mixed intentions – a fraudulent intent and a legitimate business intent; and 2) Under what circumstances should a corporation be found criminally responsible for offenses …
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Cortes,
2014
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Cortes, Jennifer Feldman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Qualified Immunity: The Constitutional Analysis And Its Application,
2014
Suffolk University Law School
Qualified Immunity: The Constitutional Analysis And Its Application, Karen Blum
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Year To Remember: The Supreme Court's Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendment Jurisprudence For The 2003 Term,
2014
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
A Year To Remember: The Supreme Court's Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendment Jurisprudence For The 2003 Term, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Brant V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 97,
2014
Nevada Law Journal
Summary Of Brant V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 97, Jaymes Orr
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court upheld that the exclusion of expert testimony is left to the district court’s wide discretion, except in cases of abuse of its discretion. Expert testimony must be relevant and reliable to be of assistance to the trier of fact. Because Brant could not present scientific or other evidence that his interrogation witness would demonstrate that Brant’s brain injury caused him falsely confess, the district court’s discretion would not be disturbed and the judgment was affirmed.
Legal Aid And The Indigent Accused In South Africa: A Proposal For Reform,
2014
Yale University
Legal Aid And The Indigent Accused In South Africa: A Proposal For Reform, Lynn Berat
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Actual Innocence In New York: The Curious Case Of People V. Hamilton,
2014
Fordham Law School
Actual Innocence In New York: The Curious Case Of People V. Hamilton, Benjamin E. Rosenberg
Res Gestae
It is rare for a case from the New York Appellate Division to be as significant as People v. Hamilton. The case, however, was the first New York appellate court decision to hold that a defendant might vacate his conviction if he could demonstrate that he was “actually innocent” of the crime of which he was charged. Although the precedential force of the decision is limited to the Second Department, trial courts throughout the state are required to follow Hamilton unless or until the appellate court in their own Department rules on the issue. Courts throughout the state are …
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The Daryl Atkins Story,
2014
William & Mary Law School
The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling,
2014
William & Mary Law School
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar,
2014
William & Mary Law School
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
United States V. Patane: The Beginning Of The End Of Miranda,
2014
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
United States V. Patane: The Beginning Of The End Of Miranda, Bryce Chauncey Loveland
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Roper V. Simmons - Supreme Court's Reliance On International Law In Constitutional Decision-Making,
2014
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Roper V. Simmons - Supreme Court's Reliance On International Law In Constitutional Decision-Making, Jessica Mishali
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rico Section 1962(C) Enterprises And The Present Status Of The “Distinctness Requirement” In The Second, Third And Seventh Circuits,
2014
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Rico Section 1962(C) Enterprises And The Present Status Of The “Distinctness Requirement” In The Second, Third And Seventh Circuits, Lawrence A. Steckman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term,
2014
Touro Law School
Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
