DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row U.S.A DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2008 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2008 (As of July 1, 2008) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,307 Race of Defendant: White 1,489 (45.03%) Black 1,376 (41.61%) Latino/Latina 365 (11.04%) Native American 36 ( 1.09%) Asian 40 ( 1.21%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,249 (98.25%) Female 58 ( 1.75%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2008 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided in October Term 2007 or to Be Decided in October Term 2008 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Second Amendment District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, (Right to own and keep guns) (decision below 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) Question Presented: Do D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 violate the 2nd Amendment right of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? Decision: Yes. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess a firearm “cted to ser” that firea“traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense w” Fourth Amendment Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542 (Warrantless search of vehicle) (decision below 216 Ariz. 1 (Sup. Ct. Ariz. 2007)) Question Presented: Does the 4th Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured? Arizona v. Johnson, No. 07-1122 (Pat down of passenger) (decision below 170 P.3d 667 (Ct. App. II Ariz. 2007)) Question Presented: In the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, may an officer conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense? Herring v. United States, No. 07-513 (Suppression of evidence where officer relies on bad information) (decision below 492 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007)) Question Presented: Does the 4th Amendment require evidence found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent? Pearson, et al. v. Callahan, No. 07-751 (Warrantless entries) (decision below 494 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2007)) Questions Presented: (1) [added by the Court] Should the Court's decision in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) be overruled? (2) Several lower courts have recognized a "consent once removed" exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. Does this exception authorize police officers to enter a home without a warrant immediately after an undercover informant buys drugs inside (as the 6th and 7th Circuits have held), or does the warrantless entry in such circumstances violate the 4th Amendment (as the 10th Circuit held below)? (3) Did the 10th Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Circuit properly deny qualified immunity when the only decisions directly on point had all upheld similar warrantless entries? Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082 (Suppression of evidence where arrest violates state law) (decision below 636 S.E.2d 395 (Va. 2006)) Question Presented: Does the 4th Amendment require the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest that is based upon probable cause, where the arrest violates a provision of state law? Decision: No. The 4th Amendment is not violated when the police make an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law, nor when they search incident to that arrest. Sixth Amendment Arave v. Hoffman, No. 07-110 (Ineffective assistance of counsel, plea offers) (decision below 455 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2006)) Questions Presented: (1) Because the 9th Circuit did not require the defendant to prove his attorney’commendation on a plea offer constitut“ross err”nd mandated the attorney “escient about the direc”th Circuit err by rejecting’ prohibition regarding the use of hindsight to conclude the defendant established deficient performance? (2) Because the defendant failed to allege he would have acce’s plea offer but for his attorney’ and the 9th Circuit determined the defe’ision to reject the offer wa“”th Circuit err by concluding the defendant established prejudice? (3) (added by the Court) What, if any, remedy should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial? Decision: The defendant Hof’ate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot was granted. The portion of the 9th’nt to the claim is vacated, and the claim is to be dismissed with prejudice in the district court. Giles v. California, No. 07-6053 (Defense responsibility for unavailable witness and the Confrontation Clause) (decision below 152 P.3d 433 (Cal. 2007)) Question Presented: Does a criminal defe“orfe”th Amendment Confrontation Clause claims upon a mere showing that the defendant has caused the unavailability of a witness, as some courts have held, or must there also be an additional showing that the def’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, as other courts have held? Decision: A defendant does not lose his right to confrontation unless his actions causing a ’ilability were undertaken for the purpose of making that witness unavailable to testify against him. Indiana v. Edwards, No. 07-208 (Standard for competency for self-representation) (decision below 866 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2007)) Question Presented: May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial? Decision: Yes. Mentally ill defendants may be competent to be tried, but insufficiently competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Knowles v. Mirzayance, No. 07-1315 (Habeas review of ineffective assistance of counsel claim) (decision below unreported; 9th Cir. No. 04-57102 (11/8/07)) Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Questions Presented: (1) Did the 9th Circuit again exceed its authority under § 2254(d) by granting habeas relief without considering whether the state-court adjudication of the claim was “asonable”“arly established Feder” based on its previous conclusion that trial counsel was required to proceed with an affirmative insanity defense because it was the only defense available and despite the absence of a Supreme Court decision addressing the point? (2) May a federal appellate court substitute its own factual findings and credibility determinations for those of a district court without determining whether’indings we“clearly erroneous?” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591 (Right to confrontation and state forensic analy’ report) (decision below 870 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. App. 2007)) Question Presented: Is a state forensic analy’y report prepared for use in a criminal prose“”nce subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? Oregon v. Ice, No. 07-901 ( Application of Apprendi and Blakely to consecutive sentences) (decision below 170 P.3d 1049 (Ore. 2007)) Question Presented: Does the 6th Amendment, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), require that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant? Snyder v. Louisiana, No. 06-10119 (Application of Batson by state court) (decision below 942 So. 2d 484 (La. 2006)) Questions Presented: (1) Did the majority below ignore the plain import of Miller-El by failing to consider highly probative evidence of discriminatory intent, including the pr’s repeated comparisons of this case to the O.J. Simpson case, the prosec’ peremptory challenges to purge all African Americans from the jury, the prosec’te questioning of white and black prospective jurors, and documented evidence of a pattern of practice by the prosec’ice to dilute minority presence in petit juries? (2) Did the majority err when, in order to shore up its holding that Mr. Snyder had failed to prove discriminatory intent, it imported into a direct appeal case the standard of review this Court applied in Rice v. Collins, an AEDPA habeas case? (3) Did the majority err in refusing to consider the pr’s first two suspicious strikes on the ground that defense c’ilure to object could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because Batson error does not render the trial unfair or the verdict suspect —i.e., that failure to raise a Batson objection can never result in prejudice under Strickland v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • By Tori Alexandra Koen
    Different Dreams: An Examination of America' and Japan's National Characters An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499) by Tori Alexandra Koenig Thesis Advisor: Dr. Anthony Edmonds Ball State University Muncie, Indiana April 2008 Expected Date of Graduation: May 2009 1 Abstract When trying to distinguish what makes a member of one society different from an individual of another, the idea of national character often assumes a prominent role in the discussion. National character is the set of values that one culture treasures as the most important to the majority of individuals in that nation. This paper examines the American and Japanese national characters and looks at the fundamental dissimilarities between the two. In the United States, the definition of who is an American is based on whether or not the person appreciates the American Dream. As opposed the individualistic outlook that this ideal promotes, the Japanese share a sense of duty and view the group as the basis for society_ The contrast between these two views is clearly seen in the societies' reactions to national tragedies. To analyze this theory, I use the public's responses to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Tokyo subway sarin attacks as case studies. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Anthony Edmonds for all of his help throughout this project. Not only did he help me to create a better topic, but he also has guided me while I have worked on this paper. I want to thank Dr. Phyllis Zimmerman for her assistance with the Japanese character portions of my paper as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C. Williams Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Williams, David C., "The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People" (1996). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 633. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/633 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MILITIA MOVEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT REVOLUTION: CONJURING WITH THE PEOPLE David C. Williams4 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 879 I. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS RIGHT-ARMED REVOLUTION .... 886 A. Fear of the Government ............................ 887 B. The Revolutionary Second Amendment ............. 892 C. The Importance of the Militia ...................... 896 D. The Danger of Disarmament ....................... 901 II. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS WRONG--THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ................................................. 904 A. The Framers' View of the People
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 23 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1998 The trS uggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads Terry A. Maroney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Terry A. Maroney, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review. 564 (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/764 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HATE CRIME: MOVEMENT AT A CROSSROADS TERRY A. MARONEY* INTRODUCTION Hate crime,' far from being an anomaly, has been a means of maintaining dominant power relationships throughout United States history.2 Hate crime may be defined as acts of violence motivated by animus against persons and groups because of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin or immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, disa- bility (including, for example, HIV status), and age.3 Thus defined, * I would like to thank Brendan Fay, Thomas Hilbink, James B. Jacobs, Leslie Kahn, Jennifer Mason, Janet Prolman, Paul Schmidt, Jonathan Simon, the staff, volunteers, and clients of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP), the students of the New York University School of Law Institute for Law and Society, and all those who agreed to be interviewed for this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa State University Traditions
    Dear Iowa State University Graduates and Guests: Congratulations to all of the Spring 2015 graduates of Iowa State University! We are very proud of you for the successful completion of your academic programs, and we are pleased to present you with a degree from Iowa State University recognizing this outstanding achievement. We also congratulate and thank everyone who has played a role in the graduates’ successful journey through this university, and we are delighted that many of you are here for this ceremony to share in their recognition and celebration. We have enjoyed having you as students at Iowa State, and we thank you for the many ways you have contributed to our university and community. I wish you the very best as you embark on the next part of your life, and I encourage you to continue your association with Iowa State as part of our worldwide alumni family. Iowa State University is now in its 157th year as one of the nation’s outstanding land-grant universities. We are very proud of the role this university has played in preparing the future leaders of our state, nation and world, and in meeting the needs of our society through excellence in education, research and outreach. As you graduate today, you are now a part of this great tradition, and we look forward to the many contributions you will make. I hope you enjoy today’s commencement ceremony. We wish you all continued success! Sincerely, Steven Leath President of the University TABLE OF CONTENTS The Official University Mace ........................................................................................................... 3 The Presidential Chain of Office ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2013 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2013 (As of July 1, 2013) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,095 Race of Defendant: White 1,334 (43.10%) Black 1,291 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 391 (12.63%) Native American 33 (1.07%) Asian 45 (1.42%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,034 (98.03%) Female 61 (1.97%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 35 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 18 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2012 and October Term 2013 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Committed by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research and Prevention
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Crimes Committed by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research and Prevention Author(s): Mark S. Hamm Document No.: 211203 Date Received: September 2005 Award Number: 2003-DT-CX-0002 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Crimes Committed by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research, and Prevention Award #2003 DT CX 0002 Mark S. Hamm Criminology Department Indiana State University Terre Haute, IN 47809 Final Final Report Submitted: June 1, 2005 This project was supported by Grant No. 2003-DT-CX-0002 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .............................................................. iv Executive Summary....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row USA, Winter 2000
    DE.AIii ROW U.SA Winter2000 A quarterllJ report hlJ. the Capital Punishment Project 0£ the NAACPLegal De£ense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services,Criminal Justice Project · NAACP Legal Defense & EducationalFund . \_., TOTAL NUMBER OF'DEATHROWINMATES KNOWN TO LDF: . 3,652 Race of Defendant: White 1,701 (46.71%) Black 1,562 (42.77%) ' Latino/Latina 312 ( 8.54%) Native American 45 ( 1.23%) Asian 31 ( .85%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,600 (98.58%) Female 52 ( 1.42%) Juveniles: Male 69 ( 1. 89°/o) DISPOSmONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions: 59'8 Suicides: . 54 Commutations: 90 (including those by the Governor ofTexas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 157 Convi~ions/Sentences reversed: 1697 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 40 (Underlinedjurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware , Florida, Georgia, Idaho , Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New Yorlc,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government,U .S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vennont,West Virginia,Wisconsin . Death Row U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court October Term - 1999 SignificantCriminal , Habeas, & Other Pending Cases · 1. CASESRAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349 (Manipulationofluggage stored in overhead bin of bus) (decision below at 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Observe As Richard Snell's Life Hangs in Balance—Gov. Tucker
    CONTACT THE PHOENIX PROJECT “YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU MAD!n VOLUME 8, NUMBER 11 NEWS REVIEW s 3.00 APRIL 7. 1995 ***EX’T’RA*** “The ?Fftitchers”Observe As RichardSnelh Life Hangs In Balance Gov,Tucker Under Hot $potlight! 4/6/95 RICK MARTIN whether or not to execute Richard Wayne Snell is just such a turning point. The combined voice of the American people is There are those times when men of conscience must rally making itself heard-the only question remaining is: Will it together for a single cause. The life of an Arkansas death- make the critical difference which will prevent one voice of row inmate literally depends on what is done in these last freedom from being extinquished forever? days prior to his scheduled execution date of April 19. It is In the January 26, 1995 issue of THE SEEKERS, editor obvious to anyone familiar with Richard Wayne Snell’s case Richard Snell writes, “On August 13th, 1985, the first day of that he has been railroaded by a legal system which is the Capital Murder trial that resulted in this writer being on actively avoiding real justice to protect MAJOR skeletons in Death Row, after a repeated objection (all objections by the the closet. As you will come to see by reading this Special Defense were overruled) by the young Defense lawyers as to Edrtion of CONTACT, those corrupt officials in the state of unethical tactics by Prosecution, the Judge called the De- Arkansas plan to continue their rotten actions unabated.
    [Show full text]
  • Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence. Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, 14(2), 306-360
    DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu May 14 13:17:08 2020 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 20th ed. Stephen A. Kent & Robin D. Willey, Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence, 14 Rutgers J. L. & Religion 306 (2013). ALWD 6th ed. Stephen A. Kent & Robin D. Willey, Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence, 14 Rutgers J. L. & Religion 306 (2013). APA 6th ed. Kent, S. A.; Willey, R. D. (2013). Sects, cults, and the attack on jurisprudence. Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, 14(2), 306-360. Chicago 7th ed. Stephen A. Kent; Robin D. Willey, "Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence," Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 14, no. 2 (2013): 306-360 McGill Guide 9th ed. Stephen A Kent & Robin D Willey, "Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence" (2013) 14:2 Rutgers JL & Religion 306. MLA 8th ed. Kent, Stephen A., and Robin D. Willey. "Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence." Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 14, no. 2, 2013, p. 306-360. HeinOnline. OSCOLA 4th ed. Stephen A Kent and Robin D Willey, 'Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence' (2013) 14 Rutgers J L & Religion 306 Provided by: University of Alberta Libraries -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. SECTS, CULTS, AND THE ATTACK ON JURISPRUDENCE1 Stephen A. Kent* and Robin D. Willey** ABSTRACT This article examines the anti-juridical doctrines and actions of various religious and religiously-related sects and cults in the United States and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C
    Cornell Law Review Volume 81 Article 2 Issue 4 May 1996 Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C. Williams Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David C. Williams, Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People , 81 Cornell L. Rev. 879 (1996) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol81/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MILITIA MOVEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT REVOLUTION: CONJURING WITH THE PEOPLE David C. Williams4 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 879 I. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS RIGHT-ARMED REVOLUTION .... 886 A. Fear of the Government ............................ 887 B. The Revolutionary Second Amendment ............. 892 C. The Importance of the Militia ...................... 896 D. The Danger of Disarmament ....................... 901 II. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS WRONG--THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ................................................. 904 A. The Framers' View of the People ................... 904 B. Conjuring with the People .......................... 909 1. Individual Rights Theorists ........................ 911 2. M ilitia Writers ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Handling Exculpatory Evidence: What Is Demanded of the Ethical Prosecutor and of Competent Defense Counsel?
    HANDLING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE: WHAT IS DEMANDED OF THE ETHICAL PROSECUTOR AND OF COMPETENT DEFENSE COUNSEL? Sponsor: Criminal Law Section CLE Credit: 1.0 ethics Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:40 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Cascade Ballroom A Kentucky International Convention Center Louisville, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter .................................................................................................................. i Handling Exculpatory Evidence: What is Demanded of the Ethical Prosecutor and of Competent
    [Show full text]