Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Warrantless Search Of A College Dormitory, Ronald J. Bacigal

Akron Law Review

The first question the courts must consider is whether there are any limitations on when and how university officials may search a dormitory room. Since the fourth amendment has no application to searches and seizures conducted by private individuals, the courts have jurisdiction to review only state action infringing on the constitutional right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. In spite of indirect public financial support and state regulation of private universities, the courts have thus far held that the actions of private university officials are not to be considered as a form of state action. Thus this article is …

Religious Objections To The Death Penalty After Hobby Lobby, Danieli Evans

Articles

In Glossip v. Gross, the Supreme Court held that in order to prevail on the claim that a method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment, petitioners must prove that there is an available alternative that entails a lesser risk of pain. In this case, the state was using a method that is allegedly more painful than drugs used in the past because manufacturers of the preferable drugs objected to selling them for the purpose of executions. These manufacturers are not alone in their desire to boycott the death penalty. Many religious groups have declared opposition to the death …

Searches And Seizures - Banks And Banking - Witnesses - Right To Privacy; California Bankers Association V. Schultz, David F. Dybvig

Akron Law Review

FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, Congress enacted what has become known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. In California Bankers Association v. Schultz, certain parts of the Act were subjected to constitutional attack by various plaintiffs, including individual bank customers, a national bank, a bankers association, and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing itself and its bank customer members. The plaintiffs' challenges rested on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

Legislative Response To Furman V. Georgia - Ohio Restores The Death Penalty, Jeffrey T. Heintz

Akron Law Review

THE ABOVE REPRESENTS the first inclusion of a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments in any charter of any colony in the New World. Believed to be traceable to the Magna Charta, such a prohibition is now embodied in our eighth amendment. It has been the subject of much litigation and construction, most recently in Furman v. Georgia, where the death penalty, as then imposed, was declared to be invalid as cruel and unusual. Some states, including Ohio, have responded with new statutes controlling imposition of the death penalty in order to circumvent the Furman proscriptions. Only time will tell …

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 …

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 In-Court Identifications; Unnecessarily Suggestive Out-Of-Court Identifications; Due Process; Manson V. Brathwaite, Frank A. Barbieri Jr.

Akron Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Manson v. Brathwaite, a substantial amount of confusion existed concerning the judicial test which was to be applied to in-court and out-of-court criminal identification procedures. The Court, in the case of Stovall v. Denno, had first set forth a two stage test for determining whether such procedures were violative of due process. While later cases were somewhat unclear, the Stovall test continued to be used. When the Court again confronted the identification procedure question in the case of Neil v. Biggers, a new "totality of the circumstances" test was set forth. …

Fools Rush In Where Lawyers Would Better Tread: The Right To Self-Representation And Related Standards Of Competency, Julia M. Capie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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, 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, Hannah Robbins

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review Of State Criminal Prosecutions, Kevin C. Walsh

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. This Article resurrects Charles Hammond’s arguments and contends that he was right: the best interpretation of section 25 is that it did not encompass Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Others may reasonably disagree with this Article’s ultimate interpretive conclusion about section 25’s limited reach even while acknowledging the strength of the various supporting arguments. Accordingly, this Article’s basic claim comes in both a strong version and …

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, 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, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter because the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) authorizes such an appeal and because unique policy concerns identified in State v. Lewis[1] do not apply.

[1] 124 Nev. 132, 136, 178 P.3d 146, 148 (2008).

Johnson V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Joseph Meissner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a sentence and conviction following a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and one count of battery with intent to commit a crime. Affirmed.

Newsroom: Waters '98 On Tempest Verdict Reversal, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Interstate Agreement On Detainers And The Rights It Created, William A. Meadows

Akron Law Review

Prior to 1984, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (lAD) generated very little concern. However, under a theory recently put forth by defense attorneys for accused serial killer Alton Coleman the IAD could provide a mechanism which would interfere with the execution of the death penalty.

This article will explore this issue in detail, but before doing so, a discussion of the workings of the IAD is appropriate in order to better appreciate the consequences of this theory. This article will first explore the effects of the detainer process and the events which led to the development of the IAD. Second, …

"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins

Akron Law Review

On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.