First Department, People V. Mason,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
First Department, People V. Mason, Kathleen Byrne
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The ‘Hart’ Of The (Mr.) Big Problem,
2016
Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law
The ‘Hart’ Of The (Mr.) Big Problem, Adelina Iftene
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hart reviewed the application and evidentiary consequences of Mr. Big operation. For the majority, Moldaver J. changed the common law confessions rule so that it applies in Mr. Big scenarios based on a two-pronged test. Immediately after Hart, the SCC rendered a new decision in R v Mack where the two pronged test was leniently applied in favour of the Crown. In this article I argue that the SCC approach in Hart and its application in Mack failed to address to the core problems that Mr. Big operations pose. It …
The Uneven Playing Field: Ethical Disparities Between The Prosecution And Defense Functions In Criminal Cases,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
The Uneven Playing Field: Ethical Disparities Between The Prosecution And Defense Functions In Criminal Cases, Thomas F. Liotti, Christopher Zeh
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Law Professor's Sabbatical In District Attorney's Office,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Law Professor's Sabbatical In District Attorney's Office, Bobby Marzine Harges
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
People V. Johnson,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
People V. Buie,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Matter Of Baim V. Eidens,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
People V. Boone,
2016
Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse,
2016
Pepperdine University
Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse, Lindsay Gochnour
Pepperdine Law Review
This Comment seeks to explore the effect that the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence would have on child maltreatment cases and the benefits that would be afforded to child abuse victims if they were provided the same legal protections as victims of other crimes. This Comment argues that expanding the California Evidence Code to allow the admission of prior acts of psychological and emotional child maltreatment would make great progress for the protection of child abuse victims and the prosecution of their (often losing) cases.
Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses,
2016
Nova Southeastern University - Shepard Broad College of Law
Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.
NSU Law Seminar Series
Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques
Fixing Bail,
2016
Florida State University College of Law
Fixing Bail, Samuel R. Wiseman
Scholarly Publications
A large portion of the jail population consists of criminal defendants whose guilt has yet to be established. A growing number of states have attempted to reduce jail populations in light of budget concerns, and many federal and state statutes already direct judges to detain defendants only if alternative conditions will not protect society or prevent pretrial flight. Despite these legislative directives, judges continue to jail too many defendants pretrial. Indeed, although statutes often direct judges not to impose financial conditions leading to detention, many pretrial detainees are in jail because they could not afford the bond set by a …
The Riddle Of Harmless Error Revisited,
2016
University of New Hampshire School of Law
The Riddle Of Harmless Error Revisited, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
Half a century ago, in Chapman v. California, the Supreme Court imposed on appellate courts an obligation to vacate or reverse criminal judgments marred by constitutional error unless the government demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court did not explain the juridical status of this obligation or its relation to the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2111. In the intervening years, commentators have struggled to make sense of Chapman. Some see it as a constitutional mandate. Others view it as an example of constitutional common law. In THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR, written …
The Prosecutor's Turn,
2016
Brooklyn Law School
Birchfield V. North Dakota:Why The United States Supreme Court Should Rely On Riley V. California To Hold That Criminalizing A Suspect’S Refusal To Consent To A Warrantless Blood Test Violates The Fourth Amendment,
2016
Indiana Tech Law School
Birchfield V. North Dakota:Why The United States Supreme Court Should Rely On Riley V. California To Hold That Criminalizing A Suspect’S Refusal To Consent To A Warrantless Blood Test Violates The Fourth Amendment, Adam Lamparello, Cynthia Swann
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Humane Proposals For Swift And Painless Death,
2016
University of Richmond
Humane Proposals For Swift And Painless Death, Bryce Buchmann
Law Student Publications
This comment will provide reasons why lethal injection is not the appropriate method of execution in the United States, discuss factors that should be considered in selecting a method of execution and conclude that several alternative methods of punishment are preferable to lethal injection. Part I of this comment will detail the history of lethal injection in the United States and the issues associated with the practice. Part II examines how the government determines which method of execution is appropriate. Finally, Part III provides proposals for more humane punishment and concludes the comment.
Thinking Outside The Jury Box: Deploying The Grand Jury In The Guilty Plea Process,
2016
American University Washington College of Law
Thinking Outside The Jury Box: Deploying The Grand Jury In The Guilty Plea Process, Roger Fairfax
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
There is near-universal agreement that the engine of the modern American criminal justice system is plea bargaining.'Given the ubiquity of plea bargaining, the Supreme Court and the rest of the legal community have begun setting their sights on how the practice might be better regulated. At the same time, many hold the view that the grand jury has outlived its usefulness in the administration of criminal justice and is a relic of a time gone by. Even before recent calls for the abolition of the grand jury in the wake of high-profile cases that seemed to cast the institution in …
Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye,
2016
Texas A&M University School of Law
Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon
Faculty Scholarship
In the companion cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. However, the Court defined effective assistance of counsel in only one narrow phase of plea bargaining: the client counseling phase. The Court said it would not look more broadly at the negotiation process itself as "[b]argaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style.” This statement indicates that the Court does not fully understanding developments in the field of negotiation over the last thirty years. Negotiation …
Search And Seizures As Applied To Changing Digital Technologies: A Look At Pole Camera Surveillance,
2016
Seton Hall University
Search And Seizures As Applied To Changing Digital Technologies: A Look At Pole Camera Surveillance, Tiffany M. Russo
Seton Hall Circuit Review
No abstract provided.
Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016),
2016
Nevada Law Journal
Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Rippo’s claim, that the ineffective assistance of the counsel who represented him in the first post conviction hearing excused the procedural bars to claims raised in the second petition, was rejected. The Court provided guidance on two issues related to whether an ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim has been raised in a timely fashion: (1) when does a postconviction-counsel claim reasonably become available, and (2) what is a reasonable time thereafter in which the claim must be asserted. They held on (1) that the factual basis for such a claim is not reasonably available until the conclusion of postconviction proceedings in which the …
Panel 2: Misdemeanor Offense Representation,
2016
Ohio Justice and Policy Center
Panel 2: Misdemeanor Offense Representation, David A. Singleton, Phyllis Mann, Gerry Weber, Alex Scherr
Working in the Public Interest Conferences
Panel on misdemeanor office representation moderated by Alex Scherr
