Criminal Procedure Commons^™

In Re N, Juvenile Court Must Inform Minor Of His Right To Appeal , John H. Paulsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States Vs. Peltier - The Good Faith Belief Of The Police Officer, Ronald R. Talmo

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Superior Court - The Future Of The Grand Jury Indictment In California , Suzanne Haigh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Murguia V. Municipal Court - The Defense Of Discriminatory Prosecution, Jeffrey L. Garland

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Brisendine: Search And Seizure In California , Donald E. Buddenbaum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mens Rea, Due Process And The Burden Of Proving Sanity Or Insanity, Daniel K. Spradlin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, Bruce A. Green

Mercer Law Review

Suppose that federal prosecutors have conducted an investigation culminating in an indictment. Although the prosecutors believe that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and are personally convinced that the defendant is guilty, some of the evidence they have collected is favorable to the defendant, because it tends to show that the defendant is innocent or that prosecution witnesses should not be believed. Must prosecutors disclose the favorable evidence to defense counsel to use in investigating, advising the defendant, plea negotiations, or trial? Under current federal law, the answer is generally "no." Unless favorable evidence falls within one of …

The Proposed Fairness In Disclosure Of Evidence Act Of 2012: More Cons Than Pros With Proposed Disclosure Requirements In Federal Criminal Cases, Jacquelyn Smith

Mercer Law Review

The proposed Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012 (the Act) is a proposal of uniform standards for disclosing evidence in federal criminal cases that was introduced on March 15, 2012 by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.' The Act's stated purpose is: "To require the attorney for the Government to disclose favorable information to the defendant in criminal prosecutions brought by the United States, and for

Subverting Brady V. Maryland And Denying A Fair Trial: Studying The Schuelke Report, Bennett L. Gershman

Mercer Law Review

The Schuelke Report about the ill-fated federal prosecution of the late-Senator Ted Stevens is an extraordinary contribution to criminal procedure. No other official documentation or investigative study of a criminal prosecution, to my knowledge, has dissected and analyzed as carefully and thoroughly the sordid and clandestine actions of a team of prosecutors who zealously wanted to win a criminal conviction at all costs. In examining this Report, one gets the feeling that as the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens unfolded and the prosecution's theory of guilt unraveled, the prosecutors became indifferent to the defendant's guilt or innocence. They just …

Prosecutorial Disclosure Violations: Punishment Vs. Treatment, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Mercer Law Review

Recent scholarship on prosecutorial disclosure violations proposes preventing violations through understanding and remedying the causes of violations, such as cognitive error. Scholars who adopt this view-what I call here the "treatment perspective"-often call for greater transparency and cooperation from prosecutors. A frequently unacknowledged tension exists between such a treatment perspective and a more traditional perspective-what I call here the "punishment perspective"-that seeks to deter disclosure violations through greater use of sanctions such as professional discipline.

The tension arises because increasing the certainty and severity of sanctions, as the punishment perspective urges, creates a powerful disincentive for individual prosecutors and prosecutor …

Inchoate Crimes Revisted: A Behavioral Economics Perspective, Manuel A. Utset

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Res Judicata: California V. Sims, Alan Saltzman

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Parole Revocation Procedures In Kentucky, Harry J. Rothgerber Jr., J. W. Deese

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Carter V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 26, Brittany Puzey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Whether a suspect who asks, “Can I get an attorney?” after he has been advised of his rights under Miranda , unambiguously invokes his right to counsel, and if so, whether the State can resume the interrogation of the suspect by reading him a second set of Miranda warnings and obtaining an otherwise valid waiver.

Summary Of Slaatte V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 23, David H. Rigdon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a judgment of conviction that imposed restitution in an uncertain amount. Slaatte argued that Nevada law requires that a district court set a fixed amount of restitution when it determines that restitution is appropriate as part of a sentence.