Bibliography – By CALJIC Number
NOTE: Please refer to the preceding General Bibliography section for additional references not specifically indexed to a CALJIC instruction.
1.00 Respective Duties of Judge and Jury (BIBLIO 1.00)
Instructions to jury: Sympathy to accused as appropriate factor in jury consideration, 72 ALR3d 842.
1.01 Instructions Considered as a Whole (BIBLIO 1.01)
Argument of Counsel Does Not Cure Instructional Error, Poulos, 27 U.S.D. L.Rev. 523, pp. 627-669 (1990). [A copy of this article is available to FORECITE subscribers. Ask for Article Bank # A-27.]
1.03 et seq., Juror Exposure (BIBLIO 1.03)
Interrogation or poll of jurors, during criminal trial, as to whether they have read newspaper articles pertaining to alleged crime or the trial, 15 ALR2d 1152.
Juror’s reading of newspaper account of trial in state criminal case during its progress as ground for mistrial, new trial, or reversal, 46 ALR4th 11.
Jury Secrecy During Deliberations, 110 Yale L.J. 1493 (2001).
Prejudicial effect, in criminal case, of communications between witnesses and jurors, 9 ALR3d 1275.
Prejudicial effect of jury’s procurement or use of book during deliberations in criminal cases, 35 ALR4th 626.
Pretrial publicity in criminal case as affecting defendant’s right to fair trial–federal cases, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1243.
Pretrial publicity in criminal case as ground for change of venue, 33 ALR3d 17.
1.04 Physical Restraints, Courtroom Security, Disruption, etc. (BIBLIO 1.04)
Disruptive conduct of accused in presence of jury as ground for mistrial or discharge of jury, 89 ALR3d 960.
Disruptive conduct of spectators in presence of jury during criminal trial as basis for reversal, new trial, or mistrial, 29 ALR4th 659.
Handling The Problem Criminal Defendant In The Courtroom: The Use Of Physical Restraints And Expulsion In The Modern Era, 2 San Diego Just. J. 507 (1994).
Propriety and prejudicial effect of gagging, shackling, or otherwise physically restraining accused during course of state criminal trial, 90 ALR3d 17.
1.05 Juror’s Use of Notes (BIBLIO 1.05)
Taking and use of trial notes by jury, 14 ALR3d 831.
1.24 Actual/Constructive Possession (see also 12.00 et seq., Drug Offenses and 12.40 Weapons Offenses) (BIBLIO 1.24)
Conviction of possession of illicit drugs found in premises of which defendant was in non-exclusive possession, 56 ALR3d 948.
Conviction of possession of illicit drugs found in automobile of which defendant was not sole occupant, 57 ALR3d 1319.
Statutory presumption of possession of weapon by occupants of place or vehicle where it was found, 87 ALR3d 949.
What amounts to “control” under state statute making it illegal for felon to have possession or control of firearm or other dangerous weapon, 66 ALR4th 1240.
2.00 – 2.02 Circumstantial Evidence (BIBLIO 2.00)
Modern status of rule regarding necessity of instruction on circumstantial evidence in criminal case, 36 ALR4th 1046.
2.03 et seq., Miscellaneous Evidentiary Instructions (BIBLIO 2.03)
Admissibility of hypnotically refreshed or enhanced testimony, 77 ALR4th 927.
Modern view as to propriety and correctness of instructions referable to maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, 4 ALR2d 1077.
Privileged testimony: Propriety and prejudicial effect of comment or instruction by court with respect to party’s refusal to permit introduction of privileged testimony, 34 ALR3d 775.
2.11 Production of All Available Evidence, Destruction of Evidence (BIBLIO 2.11)
Consumption or destruction of physical evidence due to testing or analysis by prosecution’s expert as warranting suppression of evidence or dismissal of case against accused in state court, 40 ALR4th 594.
Destruction of ampoule used in alcohol breath test as warranting suppression of result of test, 19 ALR4th 509.
Duty of Prosecutor To Present Exculpatory Evidence To State Grand Jury. Sharon N. Humble, 49 ALR5th 639.
Homicide: Cremation of victim’s body as violation of accused’s rights, 70 ALR4th 1091.
Prosecution’s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence as violating criminal defendant’s due process rights under Federal Constitution–Supreme Court cases, 102 L. Ed. 2d 1041.
Prosecutor’s duty, under due process clause of Federal Constitution, to disclose evidence favorable to accused–Supreme Court cases, 87 L. Ed. 2d 802.
2.12 Unavailable Witness (BIBLIO 2.12)
Admissibility or use in criminal trial of testimony given at preliminary proceeding by witness not available at trial, 38 ALR4th 378.
Sufficiency of efforts to procure missing witness’ attendance to justify admission of his former testimony–state cases, 3 ALR4th 87.
2.13 Prior Inconsistent Statements (BIBLIO 2.13)
Use or admissibility of prior inconsistent statements of witness as substantive evidence of facts to which they relate in criminal case–modern state cases, 30 ALR4th 414.
2.15 Possession of Stolen Property (BIBLIO 2.15)
Modern status: Instruction allowing presumption or inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property as violation of defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination, 88 ALR3d 1178.
Possession Of Stolen Property As Continuing Offense, 24 ALR 5th 132, and Later Case Service.
What constitutes “recently” stolen property within rule inferring guilt from unexplained possession of such property, 89 ALR3d 1202.
2.20 et seq., Witness Credibility (see also 2.20.1 Child Testimony) (BIBLIO 2.20)
The Believability of Repressed Memories, J.M. Golding, et al., 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 569-92 D ’95.
Expert Evidence and Hearsay: The Influence of “Second Hand” Information on Jurors’ Decisions. R. A. Schuller. 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 345-62, Aug. 1995.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: Modern view as to propriety and correctness of instructions, 4 ALR2d 1077.
Impeachment of defense witness in criminal case by showing witness’ prior silence or failure or refusal to testify, 20 ALR4th 245.
Is The Witness Believable? A New Look At Truth And Veracity Character Evidence And Bad Acts Relevant To Truthfulness In A Criminal Case, Fred Warren Bennett, 9 St. Thomas L. Rev. 569, Spring 1997
Jury Direction on Dishonesty [Great Britain], Davies, 54 J.Crim.L. 52, Feb. 1990.
Making Monsters: False Memories, Psycho-therapy and Sexual Hysteria, Richard Ofshe & Ethan Watters, University of California Press (Berkeley), 1996.
Necessity and admissibility of expert testimony as to credibility of witness, 20 ALR3d 684.
Preventing Or Limiting Cross-Examination Of Prosecution’s Witness As To His Motive For Testifying, 62 A.L.R.2d 610, supp sec. 5; supp sec. 11.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of comments by counsel vouching for credibility of witness–state cases, 45 ALR4th 602.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of instructions on credibility of alibi witnesses, 72 ALR3d 617.
Questioning the Reliability of Children’s Testimony: An Examination of the Problematic Elements. A.R. Dunn, 19 Law and Psychol. Rev. 203-15, Spring 1995.
Recent Hearsay Developments In California, 43 Orange County Lawyer 32 (2001).
Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Applying The Daubert Standard In State Courts, J. Hough, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 855-84, January 1995.
Repression, Memory, and Suggestibility: A Call for Limitations on the Admissibility of Repressed Memory Testimony in Sexual Abuse Trials. J.M.K. Murray, 66 Colo. L. Rev. 477-522 1995.
Use of drugs as affecting competency or credibility of witness, 65 ALR3d 705.
Witness credibility: Propriety and prejudicial effect of instruction to jury in federal criminal trial that witnesses are presumed to tell the truth, 8 ALR Fed 319.
2.20.1 Child Testimony (see also 2.20 et seq., Witness Credibility) (BIBLIO 2.20.1)
Evidence of Child — Corroboration Where Identification at Issue — Independent Source — Direction on Functions of Judge and Jury Regarding Corroboration Evidence [Great Britain], Rees and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 301, May 1988.
Instructions to jury as to credibility of child’s testimony in criminal case, 32 ALR4th 1196.
Questioning the Reliability of Children’s Testimony: An Examination of the Problematic Elements. A.R. Dunn, 19 Law and Psychol. Rev. 203-15, Spring 1995.
Proposed Uniform Child Witness Testimony Act: An Impermissible Abridgement of Criminal Defendants’ Rights, 45 B.C. L. Rev. 467 (2004).
Sex Abuse, Accusations of Lies, and Videotaped Testimony: A Proposal for a Federal Hearsay Exception in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. D.B. Lathi. 68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 507-40, Spring 1997.
True and False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse; Assessment and Case Management. Tara Ney, ed., Brunner/Mazel 1995.
Two Critical Evidentiary Issues in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Closed-Circuit Testimony by Child Victims And Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. A.C. Goodman, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 855-82 Spring 1995.
2.23 Witness Prior Conviction (BIBLIO 2.23)
Propriety of instruction regarding credibility of witness who has been convicted of a crime, 9 ALR4th 897.
Propriety, on impeaching credibility of witness in criminal case by showing former conviction, of questions relating to nature and extent of punishment, 67 ALR3d 775.
Right to impeach credibility of accused by showing prior conviction, as affected by remoteness in time of prior offense, 67 ALR3d 824.
2.25 Refusal of Witness to Testify (BIBLIO 2.25)
Inferences arising from refusal of witness other than accused to answer question on the ground that answer would tend to incriminate him, 24 ALR2d 895.
2.40 – 2.42 Defendant’s Character (BIBLIO 2.40 – 2.42)
Cross-examination of character witness for accused with reference to particular acts or crimes–modern state rules, 13 ALR4th 796).
Direction as to Good Character [Great Britain], Coutts, 55 J. Crim.L. 73, Feb. 1991.
Direction of Good Character [Great Britain], 55 J.Crim.L. 477, 521 Nov. 1991.
Is The Witness Believable? A New Look At Truth And Veracity Character Evidence And Bad Acts Relevant To Truthfulness In A Criminal Case, Fred Warren Bennett, 9 St. Thomas L. Rev. 569, Spring 1997
Prejudicial effect of prosecutor’s comment on character or reputation of accused, where accused has presented character witnesses, 70 ALR2d 559.
The “Standing Alone” Instruction Given in Connection with Evidence of Good Character: A Century of Confusion in the Federal Courts, Wang, 12 Crim.Just.J. 33, Winter 1990.
2.50 Uncharged Acts (BIBLIO 2.50)
Admissibility, in prosecution based on abortion, of evidence of commission of similar crimes by accused, 15 ALR2d 1080.
Admissibility of evidence of accused’s membership in gang, 39 ALR4th 775.
Necessity and sufficiency of cautionary instructions, in prosecution for rape, as to evidence of other similar offense, 77 ALR2d 906.
Prior Bad Acts and Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414, Jason L. McCandless, 5 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 689, Summer 1997.
Remarks or acts of trial judge criticizing, rebuking, or punishing defense counsel in criminal case, as requiring new trial or reversal, 62 ALR2d 166.
Right to impeach witness in criminal case by inquiry or evidence as to witness’ criminal activity not having resulted in arrest or charge–modern state cases, 24 ALR4th 333.
Similar Fact Evidence and Limited Use Instructions: An Empirical Investigation [Canada], Schaefer and Hansen, 14 Crim.L.J. 157, June 1990.
Similar Fact Evidence — Need for Specific Direction in Issue to Which Similar Facts Relate and on Their Significance to the Facts in Issue [Great Britain], Cowan and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 330, May 1990.
“Similar Fact” — Necessity to Identify Relevant Issues [Great Britain], Rees and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 802, Nov. 1992.
2.50.02 Evidence Of Other Domestic Violence (BIBLIO 2.50.02)
Cohabitation” for Purposes of Domestic Violence Statutes. 71 ALR5th 285.
People v. Simpson: Perspectives on the Implications for the Criminal Justice System: the Admissibility of Prior Acts of Domestic Violence: Simpson and Beyond, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1463 (1996).
Title III Of The Violence Against Women Act: The Answer To Domestic Violence Or A Constitutional Time-Bomb? Yvette J. Mabbun, 29 St.Mary’s L.J. 207 Saint Mary’s Law Journal 1997.
2.51 Motive (BIBLIO 2.51)
Admissibility in homicide prosecution for purpose of showing motive of evidence as to insurance policies on life of deceased naming accused as beneficiary, 28 ALR2d 857.
Necessity that trial court charge upon motive in homicide case, 71 ALR2d 1025.
2.52 Flight After Crime (BIBLIO 2.52)
Admissibility of evidence that defendant escaped or attempted to escape while being detained for offense in addition to that or those presently being prosecuted, 3 ALR4th 1085.
2.60 et seq., Defendant’s Testimony (see also 2.20 et seq., Witness Credibility) (BIBLIO 2.60 et. seq.)
Comment or argument by court or counsel that prosecution evidence is uncontradicted as amounting to improper reference to accused’s failure to testify, 14 ALR3d 723.
A Contextual Framework for the Admissibility of a Criminal Defendant’s Pre-Arrest Silence, 79 Neb. L. Rev. 448 (2000).
Defendant’s credibility: Propriety in federal criminal trial instructions disparaging defendants’ credibility, 59 ALR Fed 514.
Defining the Scope of the Privilege Against Self-incrimination: Should Prearrest Silence Be Admissible as Substantive Evidence of Guilt?, 1999 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1015 (1999).
Failure to object to improper questions or comments as to defendant’s pretrial silence or failure to testify as constituting waiver of right to complain of error–modern cases, 32 ALR4th 774.
Impeachment of defendant in criminal case by showing defendant’s prearrest silence–state cases, 35 ALR4th 731.
Jury Instruction on Failure of Accused to Testify: A Defense Strategy — Carter v. Kentucky, Comment, 5 Western New England L. Rev. 227, 1982.
Propriety under Griffin v. California and prejudicial effect of unrequested instruction that no inferences against accused should be drawn from his failure to testify, 18 ALR3d 1335.
Right of an Accused to a Fair Trial: Direction by Trial Judge to Jury that it Might Think, the Matter Being One Solely for it, that the Accused had the Greatest Interest of all Witnesses in the Outcome of the Trial so that His Evidence Should be Closely Scrutinized — Fairness of Trial Impaired [Australia], Starke, 66 Australian L.J. 51, Jan. 1992.
Self-incrimination: Instructions on inference arising from refusal of witness other than accused to answer questions on the ground that answer would tend to incriminate him, 24 ALR2d 895.
Should the Prosecution Be Allowed to Comment on a Defendant’s Pre-Arrest Silence in Its Case-in-Chief?, 29 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 181 (1997).
The Sound of Silence: The Constitutionality of the Prosecution’s Use of Prearrest Silence in Its Case-in-Chief, 33 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 449 (2000).
Supreme Court’s views as to what comments by prosecuting attorney violate accused’s privilege against self-incrimination under Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, 99 L. Ed. 2d 926. 4.
Supreme Court’s views as to what courtroom statements made by prosecuting attorney during criminal trial violate due process or constitute denial of fair trial, 40 L. Ed. 2d 886.
Violation of federal constitutional rule (Griffin v California) prohibiting adverse comment by prosecutor or court upon accused’s failure to testify, as constituting reversible or harmless error, 24 A.L.R.3d 1093, supp sec. 10.
2.70 et seq., Confessions/Admissions (BIBLIO 2.70 et seq.)
Admissibility of confession or other statement made by defendant as affected by delay in arraignment–modern state cases, 28 ALR4th 1121.
Comes a Time: The Case for Recording Interrogations, 61 Mont. L. Rev. 223 (2000).
Confessional Evidence — Direction to Jury [New South Wales], Wright, 16 Crim.L.J. 116, April 1992.
The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation, Richard A. Leo & Richard J. Ofshe, 88 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 429, 1998.
The Decision to Confess Falsely: Rational Choices and Irrational Action, Ofshe & Leo, 74 Denv.U.L.Rev. 979 (1997).
Heeding the Lessons of History: The Need for Mandatory Recording of Police Interrogations to Accurately Assess the Reliability and Voluntariness of Confessions, 52 Drake L. Rev. 619 (2004).
The High Court’s Decision Requiring Trial Judges as a General Rule to Warn Juries About Confessional Statements to the Police [Australia], Starke, 65 Australian L.J. 314, June 1991.
Judicial Directions on Disputed Confessional Evidence [Australia], Byrne, 62 Australian L.J. 1046, Dec. 1988.
Mental subnormality of accused as affecting voluntariness or admissibility of confession, 8 ALR4th 16.
Right to severance where codefendant has incriminated himself, 54 ALR2d 830, secs. 3-5, and Later Case Service.
Sufficiency of showing that voluntariness of confession or admission was affected by alcohol or other drugs, 25 ALR4th 419.
Voluntariness of confession as affected by police statements that suspect’s relatives will benefit by the confession, 51 ALR4th 495.
What Is An Involuntary Confession Now?, White, 50 Rutgers L.Rev. 2001 (1998).
2.71.5 Adoptive Admissions (BIBLIO 2.71.5)
Jury’s Need for Help as to Circumstances in Which Silence Can be Taken into Account and as to Their Approach to Whether Those Circumstances Existed in Present Case [Great Britain], Cowan and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 188, March 1990.
Nonverbal reaction to accusation, other than silence alone, as constituting adoptive admission under hearsay rule, 87 ALR3d 706.
2.80 Expert Testimony/Scientific Evidence (BIBLIO 2.80)
Admissibility and weight, in criminal case, of expert or scientific evidence respecting characteristics and identification of human hair, 23 ALR4th 1199.
Admissibility, in criminal case, of statistical or mathematical evidence offered for purpose of showing probabilities, 36 ALR3d 1194.
Admissibility, in criminal cases, of evidence of electrophoresis of dried evidentiary bloodstains, 66 ALR4th 588.
Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of expert opinion allegedly stating whether drugs were possessed with intent to distribute–state cases, 83 ALR4th 629.
Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of expert opinion evidence as to “blood splatter” interpretation, 9 ALR5th 369.
Admissibility, in homicide prosecution, of opinion evidence that death was or was not self-inflicted, 56 ALR2d 1447.
Admissibility of expert medical testimony on battered child syndrome, 98 ALR3d 306.
Admissibility of expert testimony as to appropriate punishment for convicted defendant, 47 ALR4th 1069.
Admissibility of expert testimony as to criminal defendant’s propensity toward sexual deviation, 42 ALR4th 937.
Admissibility of expert testimony as to whether accused had specific intent necessary for conviction, 16 ALR4th 666.
Admissibility of testimony of expert, as to basis of his opinion, to matters otherwise excludible as hearsay–state cases, 89 ALR4th 456.
Admissibility, weight, and sufficiency of blood-grouping tests in criminal cases, 2 ALR4th 500.
Colloquy on Expert Testimony, NW. U. L.Rev. 1131-1187 (1993).
The Daubert Handbook: The Case, Its Essential Dilemma, and Its Progeny, Michael G. Fenner, 29 Creighton L.Rev. 939 (1996).
Expert and opinion evidence as to cause or origin of fire, 88 ALR2d 230.
David Faigmann, Fingerprint Identification: Legal Issues, in 2 Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (David L. Faigman et al. eds., West 1997).
Footprints as evidence, 35 ALR2d 856.
From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: Triple Play Or Double Error, Michael H. Gottesman, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 753, 755 (1998).
Forensic Science: Chain of Custody. P. Giannelli, Crim. L. Bull. 447-65 Sept.- Oct. 1996.
The Hazards of Using the “Battered Child Syndrome” As Evidence of Self-Defense When Children Kill In Non-Confrontational Situations. L.Z. Houfek, 16 J. Juv. L. 91-114 1995.
It’s Not Bad Law–It’s Bad Science: Problems With Expert Testimony in Trial Proceedings, J.P. Thames, 18 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 545-63 Spring 1995.
The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas and Edgar Garcia-Rill, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 243 (1999).
National Research Council Committee on DNA Forensic Science: An Update, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (1996).
Necessity and admissibility of expert testimony as to credibility of witness, 20 ALR3d 684.
Necessity and effect, in homicide prosecution, of expert medical testimony as to cause of death, 65 ALR3d 283.
Propriety of hypothetical question to expert witness on cross-examination, 71 ALR2d 6.
“The Psychotherapist as Witness for the Prosecution: The Criminalization of Tarasoff,” Gregory B. Leong, et al., AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 149:8, at 1011, 1014 (Aug. 1992).
Right of accused in state courts to have expert inspect, examine, or test physical evidence in possession of prosecution–modern cases, 27 ALR4th 1188.
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of ballistics experts, 71 ALR4th 638).
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of chemist, toxicologist, technician, narcotics expert, or similar nonmedical specialist in substance analysis, 74 ALR4th 388.
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of expert in social attitudes, 74 ALR4th 330.
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of fingerprint expert, 72 ALR4th 874.
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of investigators, 81 ALR4th 259.
Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of psychiatrist or psychologist, 85 ALR4th 19.
Science, Law, and the Search for the Truth in the Courtroom, Joan E. Bertin & Mary S. Henifin, 22 J.L. Med. & Ethics 6 (1994).
Ene-Malle Lauritis, Some Fingerprints Lie, National Legal Aid Defender Association, The Legal Aid Briefcase, October 1968, p. 129.
Toxicology: A Primer on Toxicology Principles and Applications, Michael A. Kamrin, (1988).
Trend Analysis: Expert Testimony On Battering And Its Effects in Criminal Cases, 11 Wis. Women’s L.J. 75 (1996).
2.90 Burden of Proof/Presumptions (BIBLIO 2.90)
Adverse presumption or inference based on state’s failure to produce or examine informant in criminal prosecution–modern cases, 80 ALR4th 547.
An Analysis of Limitations Governing Criminal Jury Instructions on Presumptions [case note: State v. Rainey (Or. 1985) 693 P.2d 635], Gladstone, 28 Ariz. L.Rev. 311, Spring 1986.
The Atrophying of the Reasonable Doubt Standard: The United States Supreme Court’s Missed Opportunity in Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 114 SCt 1239, and it’s Implications in the Courtroom. G.M. Dery, Ill. 99 Dick. L. Rev. 613-43 Spr. 1995.
Burden and sufficiency of proof of mental irresponsibility, 17 ALR3d 146.
Burden of proof as to entrapment defense, 52 ALR4th 775.
Burden-Shifting Criminal Jury Instructions in Georgia, Doyel, 38 Mercer L.Rev. 1, Fall 1986.
Child Abuse: Father’s Conviction for Felony Child Abuse Resulting in Death was Improper in Light of Instructions that Erroneously Delegated to Jury Function of Determining Availability of Affirmative Defense of “Treatment by Spiritual Means” and that Eliminated Prosecutor’s Burden of Proof with Respect to that Defense (Lybarger v. People (Colo. 1991) 807 P.2d 570, Banks, 30 J.Fam.L.667, 1991/1992.
Constitutional Law — Finding Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Trials [case note: Lanigan v. Maloney (1st Cir. 1988) 853 F.2d 40], Giordano, 23 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 142, Spring 1989.
Defining a Reasonable Doubt for a Criminal Court Jury [Canada], Denisoff, Whittemore and Coles, 50 The Advocate 57, Jan. 1992.
Direction on, and Standard of Proof of, Unlawful Killing (R. v. Hampshire Coroner, ex p. A-G) [Great Britain], Coutts, 55 J.Crim. L. 266, Aug. 1991.
Homicide: Modern status of rules as to burden and quantum of proof to show self-defense, 43 ALR3d 221.
Instructing on burden of proof as to defense of entrapment in federal criminal case, 28 ALR Fed 767.
Instructing on the Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensive) [panel discussion], Siffert, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 365, Summer 1987.
Judge’s Instruction to Jury that Malice May be Presumed is Harmless Error (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1989), Hubbell, 42 S. Carolina L.Rev. 120, Autumn 1990.
Jury Instructions Must be Cast so that Juries will Interpret Presumptions as Permissive (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 -Dec. 31, 1987), Smith, 40 S. Carolina L.Rev. 60, Autumn 1988.
Mental irresponsibility, burden and sufficiency of proof of, 17 ALR3d 146.
The “Presumption of Innocence” as a Constitutional Doctrine, 28 Cath. U.L.Rev. 253, 1979.
Presumptions and burden of proof of continuing insanity, 27 ALR2d 121.
Presumptions of Intent (1986 Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Significant Developments in the Law of Massachusetts from Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1986), Clancy, 33 Annual Survey of Mass. L. 62, Annual 1986.
The Reasonable Doubt Rule and the Meaning of Innocence, Sundby, 40 Hasting L.J. 457, 1989.
Reasonable Doubt: An Argument Against Definition. 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1955-72 June ’95.
Reasonable Doubt: How In The World Is It Defined?, Thomas V. Mulrine, 12 Am. U. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 195, 1997.
Reasonable Doubt: To Define, or Not to Define, Diamond, 90 Col.L.Rev. 1716, Oct. 1990.
The Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction: Giving Meaning to a Critical Concept, J.N. Cohen, 22 Am. J. Crim. L. 677-701 Spring ’95.
Self-Defense and the State’s Burden of Proof, Comment, 20 Willamette L. Rev. 179, 1984.
Self-incrimination: Instruction allowing presumption or inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property as violation of defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination, 88 ALR3d 1178.
State v. Jackson: Defining “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” Robert H. Cochran, 20 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 435, Winter 1996-1997
Supreme Court’s views as to prejudicial effect of erroneous instructions to jury involving burden of proof or presumptions, 92 L.Ed. 2d 862.
The Tension Between In re Winship and the Use of Presumptions in Jury Instructions After Sandstrom, Allen and Clark, Burke, 17 New Mexico L.Rev. 55, Winter 1987.
To a Moral Certainty: The Historical Context of the Webster Charge on Reasonable Doubt (Mass.), Herrmann and Speer, 36 Boston B.J. 22, Mar.-Apr. 1992.
To a Moral Certainty: Theories of Knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600 – 1850, Shapiro, 38 Hastings L.J. 153, Nov. 1986.
Unconstitutional Presumptions in Criminal Trials May be Harmless Error [case note: Rose v. Clark (1986) 106 S. Ct. 3101], Antley, 25 Houston L.Rev. 203, Jan. 1988.
Vindicating the Right to Trial By Jury and the Requirement of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A Critique of the Conventional Wisdom About Excluding Defense Evidence, Katherine Goldwasser, (1998) 82 Geo.L.J., 621
Witness credibility: Propriety and prejudicial effect of instruction to jury in federal criminal trial that witnesses are presumed to tell the truth, 8 ALR Fed 319.
2.91 – 2.92 Identification (BIBLIO 2.91 – BIBLIO 2.92)
Admissibility and weight of extrajudicial or pretrial identification where witness was unable or failed to make in-court identification, 29 ALR4th 104.
Admissibility, at criminal prosecution, of expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness testimony, 46 ALR4th 1047.
Admissibility of evidence of photographic identification as affected by allegedly suggestive identification procedures, 39 ALR3d 1000.
Admissibility Of Evidence Of Voice Identification Of Defendant As Affected By Allegedly Suggestive Voice Lineup Procedures. 55 ALR5th 423 and Later Case Service.
A Jury Instruction Which Outlines Specific Factors in Evidence Casting Reasonable Doubt on Eyewitness Testimony is Permissible When the Factors are Described in a Neutral, Nonexplanatory Manner (Cal. Sup. Ct. Survey: May – July 1988), Langbord, 16 Pepperdine L.Rev. 492, Jan. 1989.
Evidence of Child — Corroboration Where Identification at Issue — Independent Source — Direction on Functions of Judge and Jury Regarding Corroboration Evidence [Great Britain], Rees and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 301, May 1988.
Eyewitnesses: Necessity of, and prejudicial effect of omitting, cautionary instruction to jury as to reliability of, or factors to be considered in evaluating, eyewitness identification testimony, state cases, 23 ALR4th 1089.
Eyewitness Testimony and the Use of Cautionary Instructions (Symposium on Eyewitness Identification Testimony), Greene, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 15, Winter, 1987.
“I’ll Never Forget That Face”: The Science And Law Of The Double-Blind Sequential Lineup, 26 Champion 28 (2002).
It is Reversible Error to Refuse a Jury Instruction When the Defendant’s Identification is Crucial to the Issue of Guilt (Calif. Sup. Ct. Survey Dec. 1986 – Feb. 1987), Coulter, 14 Pepperdine L.Rev. 1070, May 1987.
Requiring Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Identification Evidence at Federal Criminal Trials, Hoffheimer, 80 J.Crim.L. and Criminology 585, Nov. 1989.
Sexual Case — Identification Evidence — Guidance as to Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Knapman and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 745, Nov. 1988.
Sexual Offenses — Identification in Issue — Whether Direction on Corroboration Necessary [Great Britain], Birch and Cowan, Crim.L. Rev. 688, Oct. 1988.
Voice identification: Instructions as to identification of accused by his voice, 70 ALR2d 1019.
3.01 et seq., Aiding and Abetting (BIBLIO 3.01 et seq.)
Acts of Co-Defendant Beyond Scope of Agreement with Appellant — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Smith and Knapman, Crim.L.Rev. 693, Oct. 1988.
When A Defendant Is Prosecuted Under The “Natural and Probable Consequences” Doctrine, A Trial Court Must Provide A Jury Instruction Identifying And Describing Target Crimes That A Defendant May Have Aided Or Abetted, Christiane E. Cargill, 25 Pepp. L. Rev. 274, 1997 (California Supreme Court Survey April 1996 – July 1997).
3.10 – 3.19 Accomplices (BIBLIO 3.10 – BIBLIO 3.19)
Necessity of, and prejudicial effect of omitting, cautionary instruction to jury as to accomplice’s testimony against defendant in criminal trial, 17 ALR Fed 249.
Necessity for instructions to jury on question as to who are accomplices, within rule requiring corroboration of their testimony, 19 ALR2d 1387.
Propriety of specific jury instructions as to credibility of accomplices, 4 ALR3d 351.
Question as to who are accomplices, within rule requiring corroboration of their testimony, as one of law or fact, 19 ALR2d 1352.
Thief as accomplice of one charged with receiving stolen property, or vice versa, within rule requiring cautionary instruction, 74 ALR3d 560, §§ 3, 9, 13
3.20 Informants (BIBLIO 3.20)
Adverse presumption or inference based on state’s failure to produce or examine informant in criminal prosecution–modern cases, 80 ALR4th 547.
3.30, et seq. Intent (BIBLIO 3.30 et seq.)
Admissibility of expert testimony as to whether accused had specific intent necessary for conviction, 16 ALR4th 666.
Has Ohio Abandoned Allowing the Jury to Determine Whether Voluntary Intoxication Negatives Specific Intent? [case note: State v. Hicks (Ohio 1989) 538 N.E.2d 1030, Sosnowski, 18 Ohio Northern U. L.Rev. 179, Winter 1991.
Offence of Specific Intent — Foresight of Risk of Act by Co-Defendant Outside Scope of Agreement — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Smith and Knapman, Crim. L.Rev. 616, Sept. 1988.
Presumptions of Intent (1986 Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Significant Developments in the Law of Massachusetts from Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1986), Clancy, 33 Annual Survey of Mass. L. 62, Annual 1986.
3.32 Mental Impairment, etc. to Negate Mens Rea (BIBLIO 3.32)
Mental or emotional condition as diminishing responsibility for crime, 22 ALR3d 1228.
“Normal” Crimes And Mental Disorder: A Two-Group Comparison Of Deadly and Dangerous Felonies, E.H. Steury, M. Choinski, 18 Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 183-207 Spring 1995.
For an extensive list of criminal justice and mental health organizations, experts and other resources go to the Columbia Journalism Review’s web site (www.cjr.org). Under “Resource Guides” the site features two volumes on media coverage of criminal justice matters (1999, 2000) and a volume on covering mental health issues (1998).
3.40 – 3.41, 8.55 – 8.58 Causation (BIBLIO 3.40 – BIBLIO 3.41 – BIBLIO 8.55 – BIBLIO 8.58)
Homicide: Liability where death immediately results from treatment or mistreatment of injury inflicted by defendant, 100 ALR2d 769.
Homicide: liability where death immediately results from treatment or mistreatment of injury inflicted by defendant, 50 ALR5th 467
Jury Instructions and Proximate Cause: An Uncertain Trumpet in Georgia, Mikell, 27 Georgia St. B.J. 60, Nov. 1990.
Necessity and effect, in homicide prosecution, of expert medical testimony as to cause of death, 65 ALR3d 283.
Proximate Cause in the Law of Homicide — With Special Reference to California Cases, James L. Focht, Jr., 12 S.Cal.L.Rev. 19, 31-32, 1938.
Whether Act of Deceased Caused by Accused or Novus Actus Interveniens — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Killick and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 198, Mar. 1992.
4.00 et seq., Insanity/Mental Defect Defense (BIBLIO 4.00 et seq.)
Adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client regarding incompetency, insanity, and related issues, 17 ALR4th 575.
Andreason, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, [Kaplan and Sadock, ed.], Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (4th Ed.), Williams & Wilkins, 1985.
Booking Procedures for the Mentally Ill or Handicap Suspect: Justice Undone, 29 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 293 (2003).
Burden and sufficiency of proof of mental irresponsibility, 17 ALR3d 146.
By Reason of Insanity: Special Instruction Required, Reidinger, 75 ABA J. 105, June 1989.
Competency to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings–Cognitive Maturity and the Attorney Client Relationship. V.L. Cowden and G.R. McKee, 33 U. Louisville J. Fam. L. 629-60 Summer ’94-’95.
Competency to stand trial of criminal defendant diagnosed as “mentally retarded”–modern cases, 23 ALR4th 493.
The Craziest Reform of Them All: A Critical Analysis of The Constitutional Implications of “Abolishing” The Insanity Defense, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 1509 (2002).
Criminal Responsibility, 22 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep. 29, January/February, 1998
De Facto Departures From Insanity Instructions, Finkel, 14 L. and Human Behavior 105, April 1990.
Direction on Violent Disorder [Great Britain], Coutts, 54 J.Crim.L. 428, Nov. 1990.
Inferring the Criminal Mind: Toward a Bridge Between Legal Doctrine and Psychological Understanding, Severance, Goodman and Loftus, 20 J.Crim.L. 107, Mar.-Apr. 1992.
Insanity of accused at time of commission of offense, not raised at trial, as ground for habeas corpus or coram nobis after conviction, 29 ALR2d 703.
The Insanity Plea in Mississippi: A Primer and a Proposal, Smith, 10 Miss. College L.Rev. 147, Spring 1990.
Instruction as to presumption of continuing insanity in criminal case, 27 ALR2d 121.
Instructions in state criminal case in which defendant pleads insanity as to hospital confinement in event of acquittal, 81 ALR4th 659.
Instructions where defendant pleads insanity as to his hospital confinement in the event of acquittal, 11 ALR3d 737; 81 ALR4th 659.
Jury Instructions Not Needed to Explain Guilty But Mentally Ill Verdict (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1987), Westbrook, 40 S. Carolina 64, Autumn 1988.
Justice, Ethics, and Interdisciplinary Teaching and Practice: The Ethical Perils of Representing the Juvenile Defendant Who May Be Incompetent, 14 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 327 (2004).
Kardiner, The Traumatic Neuroses of War, Hoeber, 1941.
van der Kolk, The Psychological Consequences of Overwhelming Life Experiences, Psychological Trauma, American Psychological Press, 1987.
Krystal, Massive Psychic Trauma, International Univ. Press, 1968.
Litigating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), by Claudia Baker and Cessie Alfonso [See Article Bank # A-83 .]
Melton, Petrila, Poythress and Slobogin, Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, Guilford Press, 1987.
Mental irresponsibility, burden and sufficiency of proof of, 17 ALR3d 146.
Mentally Retarded Offender — No Independent Person at Interview — Confession — Necessity to Warn Jury of Need for Caution [Great Britain], Cowan and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 813, Nov. 1989.
Modern status of rules as to burden and sufficiency of proof of mental irresponsibility in criminal case, 17 ALR3d 146.
Modern status of test of criminal responsibility–federal cases, 56 ALR Fed. 326.
Modern status of test of criminal responsibility–state cases, 9 ALR4th 526.
The `Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ Verdict: Should Juries Be Informed of Its Consequences? M. Bach, student author. 16 Whittier L. Rev. 645-83, 1995.
Parricide and Mental Illness: A Study of 12 Cases. F. Millaud et al., Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 173-82 Spring 1996.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Death Penalty. D.D. Burke and M.A. Nixon, 38 How. L.J. 183-99 Fall 1994.
Presumption of continuing insanity as applied to accused in criminal case, 27 ALR2d 121.
Release of one committed to institution as consequence of acquittal of crime on ground of insanity, 95 ALR2d 54.
Selye, The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure to Stress, Acta., Inc., 1950.
Sexuality, Rape, And Mental Retardation, Deborah W. Denno. 1997 U. Ill. L.Rev. 315, 1997.
Should The Jury Be Instructed As To The Consequences Of A Successful Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity Verdict? A Comment On Shannon v. United States (94) 114 SCt 2419, N.M. Miles 30 New Eng. L. Rev. 749-77, Spr. 1996.
The Social Construction of Criminal Responsibility and Insanity, Roberts and Golding, 15 L. and Human Behavior 349, Aug. 1991.
State v. Dumlao: Hawaii’s Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance Defense, Tjioe, 9 U. of Hawaii L.Rev. 717, Fall 1987.
Statutory Changes and the Insanity Defense: Seeking the Perfect Insane Person, G.L. Blau, R.A. Pasewark, 18 Law & Psychol. Rev. 69-108 Spring ’94.
The Three Faces Of Evil: Jekyll on Trial: Multiple Personality Disorder & Criminal Law. By Elyn R. Saks with Stephen H. Behnke (New York: New York University Press. 1997). Sherry F. Colb, 86 Geo. L.J. 677, January 1998
Wilson and Zigelbaum, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and the Disposition to Criminal Behavior, [Figley, ed.], Trauma and its Wake, Brunner/Mazel, 1986.
Wrong Should not be Defined When Instructing the Jury on the Insanity Defense, State v. Crenshaw (Wash. 1983) 659 p.2d 488, Brownlow, 19 Gonzaga L.Rev. 453, Spring 1983.
4.19 Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) (BIBLIO 4.19)
A Primer On The Civil Trial Of A Sexually Violent Predator, 37 San Diego L. Rev. 1057 (2000).
The Blurry Line Between “Mad” And “Bad”: Is “Lack-of-control” A Workable Standard For Sexually Violent Predators?, 36 U. Rich. L. Rev. 481 (2002).
Sex Offender Statutes: Society’s Need For Protection Versus an Individual’s Constitutional Rights, L.A.S. Turner, 20 Law & Psychol. Rev. 263-74 Spring. 1996.
4.20 – 4.23 Intoxication (BIBLIO 4.20 – BIBLIO 4.23)
Drug addiction or related mental state as defense to criminal charge, 73 ALR3d 16.
Drunkenness — Effect on Intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm — Mistaken Belief that Attack Necessary in Self-Defence Induced by Drunkenness — Proper Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Rees and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 135, Feb. 1991.
Effect of voluntary drug intoxication upon criminal responsibility, 73 ALR3d 98.
Has Ohio Abandoned Allowing the Jury to Determine Whether voluntary Intoxication Negatives Specific Intent? [case note: State v. Hicks (Ohio 1989) 538 N.E.2d 1030, Sosnowski, 18 Ohio Northern U. L.Rev. 179, Winter 1991.
Implicit Redefinitions, Evidentiary Proscriptions, and Guilty Minds: Intoxicated Wrongdoers After Montana v. Egelhoff, Brett G. Sweitzer, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 269, November, 1997
Modern status of the rules as to voluntary intoxication as defense to criminal charge, 8 ALR3d 1236.
Montana v. Egelhoff: Abandoning a Defendant’s Fundamental Right To Present A Defense, Jeffrey Scott Robinette, 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1349, Summer 1997
Montana v. Egelhoff: Voluntary Intoxication, Morality, and the Constitution, Robert J. McManus, 46 Am. U. L. Rev. 1245, April, 1997.
When intoxication deemed involuntary so as to constitute a defense to criminal charge, 73 ALR3d 195.
4.30 Unconscious Act (BIBLIO 4.30)
Automatism or unconsciousness as defense to criminal charge, 27 ALR4th 1067.
4.40 Duress/Necessity (BIBLIO 4.40)
Beyond Self-Defense: The Use of Battered Woman Syndrome in Duress Defenses. S. D. Appel, 1994 U. Ill. L. Rev. 955-80 1994.
“Choice of evils,” necessity, duress, or similar defense to state or local criminal charges based on acts of public protest, 3 ALR5th 521.
Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 ALR4th 481.
Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to criminal prosecution, 40 ALR2d 908.
Downward Adjustment and the Slippery Slope: The Use of Duress In Defense of Battered Offenders, L.K. Dore, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 665-773 1995.
Duress: A Philosophical Account of the Defense in Law. C. O. Finkelstein, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 251-83 Spring 1995.
Duress and Provocation as Excuses to Murder: Salutary Lessons From Recent Anglo-American Jurisprudence. A. Reed, 6 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 51-92 Fall 1996.
Ineffective assistance of counsel: Compulsion, duress, necessity, or “hostage syndrome” defense, 8 ALR5th 713.
4.51 Alibi (BIBLIO 4.51)
Duty of court, in absence of specific request, to instruct on subject of alibi, 72 ALR3d 547.
Necessity of Alibi Instructions: The Court’s Unswaying Resole to Protect a Defendant’s Right to an Alibi Instruction (The Dist. of Col. Ct. of App. Student Project: A Survey of Recent Case Law), Watson, 33 Howard L.J. 437, Winter 1991.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of instructions on credibility of alibi witness, 72 ALR3d 617.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of on or about instruction where alibi evidence in federal criminal case purports to cover specific date shown by prosecution evidence, 92 ALR Fed 313.
Validity and construction of statute requiring defendant in criminal case to disclose matter as to alibi defense, 45 ALR3d 958.
4.60 Entrapment (BIBLIO 4.60)
Adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client regarding entrapment defense, 8 ALR4th 1160.
Admissibility of evidence of other offenses in rebuttal of defense of entrapment, 61 ALR3d 293.
Availability in state court of defense of entrapment where accused denies committing acts which constitute offense charged, 5 ALR4th 1128.
Availability of defense of entrapment where accused denies participating at all in offense, 61 ALR2d 677.
Bad Advice: The Entrapment By Estoppel Doctrine in Criminal Law. S. Connelly, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 627 48 Jan. 1994.
Burden of proof as to entrapment defense–state cases, 52 ALR4th 775.
Caught in the Web: Entrapment in Cyberspace [Child Sexual Abuse]. J. Gregg. 19 Hastings Comm. & Ent. 157-97 Fall 1996.
Entrapment as defense to charge of selling or supplying narcotics where government agents supplied narcotics to defendant and purchased them from him, 9 ALR5th 464.
Entrapment defense in sex offense prosecutions, 12 ALR4th 413.
Instructing on burden of proof as to defense of entrapment in federal criminal case, 28 ALR Fed 767.
Modern status of the law concerning entrapment to commit narcotics offense–federal cases, 22 ALR Fed. 731.
Modern status of the law concerning entrapment to commit narcotics offense–state cases, 62 ALR3d 110.
The New Sentencing Entrapment and Sentencing Manipulation Defenses, Guerra, 7 Fed. Sent. Rptr. 181, (1995).
Propriety and prejudicial effect in federal criminal case of instruction distinguishing lawful and unlawful entrapment, 39 ALR Fed 751.
Psychology, Factfinding, and Entrapment, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 759 (2005).
Sentencing Manipulation and Entrapment as Defenses, Boss & Rosenberg, The Champion, July 1995, at p. 38.
What conduct of federal law enforcement authorities in inducing or co-operating in criminal offense raises due process defense distinct from entrapment, 97 ALR Fed. 273.
United States v. Tucker (6th Cir. 1994) 28 F3d 1420: The Illegitimate Death of the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense. C.F. Meis, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 955-78 May 1995.
4.71 – 4.72 Time or Date of Offense (BIBLIO 4.71 – BIBLIO 4.72)
Crown Alleging Murder on a Specific Date — Forensic Evidence Linking Crime to Accused but Witnesses Testifying to Seeing Deceased After that Date — Judge Advising Counsel of His Intention to Direct Jury that it was for Them to Decide on Materiality of Date in Considering Whether Accused was the Killer — Whether Judge’s Intervention Unfair to Defence [Great Britain], Cowan and Birch, Crim.L.Rev. 655, Sept. 1992.
The Disappearing ex Post Facto Clause and Reviving Time-barred Prosecutions, 30 Sw. U. L. Rev. 197 (2000).
Does Time Eclipse Crime? Stogner V. California and the Court’s Determination of the ex Post Facto Limitations on Retroactive Justice, 38 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1011 (2004).
4.80 Parental Discipline (BIBLIO 4.80)
Criminal liability for excessive or improper punishment inflicted on child by parent, teacher, or one in loco parentis, 89 ALR2d 396.
4.000 Non-CALJIC Defenses (BIBLIO 4.000)
“The Epilepsy Defense Reconsidered,” Irma Jacqueline Ozer, Criminal Law Bulletin, Volume 33, Number 4, July-August 1997, pp. 328-351.
(see also 9.35.1 Battered Woman/Child Syndrome) (BIBLIO 5.12 et seq.)
Accused’s right to have jury instructed as to both unintentional shooting and self-defense, 15 ALR4th 983.
Admissibility Of Threats To Defendant Made By Third Parties To Support Claim Of Self-Defense In Criminal Prosecution For Assault Or Homicide, 55 ALR5th 449, and Later Case Service.
Battered Child Defendant in California: The Admissibility of Evidence Regarding the Effects of Abuse on a Child’s Honest and Reasonable Belief of Imminent Danger. C.C. Azarcon, 26 Pa. L.J. 831-79 April 1995.
Battered Children Who Kill: Developing an Appropriate Legal Response. C.S. Ryan, 10 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics and Pub. Pol’y. 301-39 1996.
Battered Woman Syndrome: A Tool For Batterers? M.F. Griffith, 64 Fordham L. Rev. 141-98 Oct. 1995.
Battered Women and the Full Benefit of Self-Defense Laws, Duiven, 12 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 103-11 (1997).
The Battered Woman, Self-Defense, and the Grand Jury: Why the Jury Refused to Indict. V.L. Lutz, C.M. Bonomolo, 32 Trial 46-7+ Aug. 1996.
Beyond Self-Defense: The Use of Battered Woman Syndrome in Duress Defenses. S. D. Appel, 1994 U. Ill. L. Rev. 955-80 1994.
Clemency for Killers? Pardoning Battered Women Who Strike Back. C.N. Becker, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 297-342 Nov. 1995.
Defense of Others: Origins, Requirements, Limitations and Ramifications. M.F. Bendinelli & J.T. Edsall, 5 Regent Univ. L. Rev. 153-214 Spring 1995.
Downward Adjustment and the Slippery Slope: The Use of Duress In Defense of Battered Offenders, L.K. Dore, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 665-773 1995.
Duress and Provocation as Excuses to Murder: Salutary Lessons From Recent Anglo-American Jurisprudence. A. Reed, 6 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 51-92 Fall 1996.
Duty of trial court to instruct on self-defense in absence of request by accused, 56 ALR2d 1170.
The Hazards of Using the “Battered Child Syndrome” As Evidence of Self-Defense When Children Kill In Non-Confrontational Situations. L.Z. Houfek, 16 J. Juv. L. 91-114 1995.
Homicide: Modern status of rules as to burden and quantum of proof to show self-defense, 43 ALR3d 221.
How Will Battered Women Fare Under the New Welfare Reform? S.L. Howell. 12 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 140-50. 1997.
Mistaken Belief in Self-Defence [United Kingdom], Cooper, 56 J.Crim.L. 377, Nov. 1992.
Murder — Self-Defense — Direction to Jury on Subjective Element [Great Britain], Killick and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 747, Oct. 1992.
The Perplexing Borders of Justification and Excuse, Greenawalt, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1897, 1984.
Right to Jury Instruction on Self-Defense May be Waived [1985 annual survey of S. Carolina law], Norton, 38 S. Carolina L.Rev. 90, Autumn 1986.
Self-Defense and the State’s Burden of Proof, Comment, 20 Willamette L. Rev. 179, 1984.
Self-Defense and the Child Parricide Defendant: Should Courts Make a Distinction Between The Battered Woman and the Battered Child? M.A. Scott, 44 Drake L. Rev. 351-75 1996.
Self-Defense As A Justification For Punishment, George P. Fletcher, 12 Cardozo L.Rev. 859 (1991).
Standard for determination of reasonableness of criminal defendant’s belief, for purposes of self-defense claim, that physical force is necessary–modern cases, 73 ALR4th 993.
Unintentional killing of or injury to third person during attempted self-defense, 55 ALR3d 620.
Turning the Tables: Redefining Self-Defense Theory for Children Who Kill Abusive Parents. J.R. James, student author. 18 Law & Psychol. Rev. 393-408 Spr. 94
Will the “Real” Battered Woman Please Stand Up? In Search of a Realistic Legal Definition of Battered Woman Syndrome. A.R. Callahan, 3 Am. U.J. Gender & L. 117-52 Fall 1994.
6.00 et seq., Attempts (BIBLIO 6.00 et seq.)
Impossibility of consummation of substantive crime as defense in criminal prosecution for conspiracy or attempt to commit crime, 37 ALR3d 375.
6.10 et seq., Conspiracy (BIBLIO 6.10 et seq.)
Admissibility of statements of coconspirators made after termination of conspiracy and outside accused’s presence, 4 ALR3d 671.
An Analysis of the Rules of Contribution and No Contribution For Joint and Several Liability in Conspiracy Cases. T.J. Stanley, 35 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1-122 1994.
Compound/Complex Criminal Statutes and the Constitution: Demanding Unanimity as to Predicate Acts, Eric S. Miller, (1995) 104 Yale L.J. 2277.
Impossibility of consummation of substantive crime as defense in criminal prosecution for conspiracy or attempt to commit crime, 37 ALR3d 375.
Right of defendants in prosecution for criminal conspiracy to separate trials, 82 ALR3d 366.
Whose Head is in the Sand? Problems with the Use of the Ostrich Instruction in Conspiracy Cases, Chinni, 13 West. N. Eng. L.Rev. 35, Winter 1991.
6.35 Solicitation (BIBLIO 6.35)
Solicitation to commit crime against more than one person or property, made in single conversation as single or multiple crimes, 24 ALR4th 1324.
6.50 Criminal Street Gangs (BIBLIO 6.50)
The Jets and the Sharks are Dead: State Statutory Responses to Criminal Street Gangs. D. R. Truman, student author. 73 Wash. U. L.Q. 683-735 Summer 1995.
Understanding ‘Gang’ Offenses, by Cessie Alfonso [See FORECITE Article Bank #A-82.]
7.20 Perjury (BIBLIO 7.20)
The “Blue Wall of Silence” As Evidence Of Bias and Motive to Lie: A New Approach to Police Perjury, Gabriel J. Chin and Scott C. Wells, 59 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 233, Winter 1998.
Determination of materiality of allegedly perjurious testimony in prosecution under 18 USCS secs. 1621, 1622, 22 ALR Fed. 379.
Incomplete, misleading, or unresponsive but literally true statement as perjury, 69 ALR3d 993.
Materiality of testimony forming basis of perjury charge as question for court or jury in state trial, 37 ALR4th 948.
8.00 et seq., Homicide (see also 8.10 et seq., Murder; 8.21 et seq., Felony Murder: 8.37 et seq., Manslaughter) (BIBLIO 8.00 et seq.)
Accused’s right to have jury instructed as to both unintentional shooting and self-defense, 15 ALR4th 983.
Admissibility, in homicide prosecution, of opinion evidence that death was or was not self-inflicted, 56 ALR2d 1447.
Admissibility of evidence in homicide case that victim was threatened by one other than defendant, 11 ALR5th 831.
Admissibility on behalf of accused in homicide case of evidence that killing was committed at victim’s request, 71 ALR2d 617.
Admissibility Of Threats To Defendant Made By Third Parties To Support Claim Of Self-Defense In Criminal Prosecution For Assault Or Homicide, 55 ALR5th 449, and Later Case Service.
Criminal liability for death of another as result of accused’s attempt to kill self or assist another’s suicide, 40 ALR4th 702.
Criminal liability where act of killing is done by one resisting felony or other unlawful act committed by defendant, 56 ALR3d 239.
Depression and Homicidal Violence. C. P. Malmquist. 18 Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 145-62 Spr. 1995.
Earlier prosecution for offense during which homicide was committed as bar to prosecution for homicide, 11 ALR3d 834.
Fetal Homicide: Woman or Fetus as Victim? A Survey of Current State Approaches And Recommendations For Future State Application, 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1845 (2000).
From Keeler v. Superior Court [(70) 470 P2d 617] to People v. Davis [(94) 872 P2d 591]: The Definition of Fetal Murder in California. A.H. Hsu, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 219-41 Fall ’95.
Homicide based on killing of unborn child, 40 ALR3d 444.
Homicide by withholding food, clothing, or shelter, 61 ALR3d 1207.
Homicide predicated on improper treatment of disease or injury, 45 ALR3d 114.
Homicide: Cremation of victim’s body as violation of accused’s rights, 70 ALR4th 1091.
Homicide: Criminal liability for death resulting from unlawfully furnishing intoxicating liquor or drugs to another, 32 ALR3d 589.
Homicide: Failure to provide medical or surgical attention, 100 ALR2d 483.
Homicide on improper treatment of disease or injury, 45 ALR3d 114.
Homicide: Physician’s withdrawal of life supports from comatose patient, 47 ALR4th 18.
Necessity and effect, in homicide prosecution, of expert medical testimony as to cause of death, 65 ALR3d 283.
Necessity that trial court charge upon motive in homicide case, 71 ALR2d 1025.
Parricide and Mental Illness: A Study of 12 Cases. F. Millaud et al., Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 173-82 Spring 1996.
People v. Davis: California’s Murder Statute and the Requirement of Viability for Fetal Murder, J.N. Qureshi, 25 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 579-614 Spring ’95.
Propriety of manslaughter conviction in prosecution for murder, absent proof of necessary elements of manslaughter, 19 ALR4th 861.
Reforming California’s Homicide Law, 23 Pepp. L. Rev. 495 (1996).
Single act affecting multiple victims as constituting multiple assaults or homicides, 8 ALR4th 960.
Validity and construction of statue defining homicide by conduct manifesting depraved indifference, 25 ALR4th 311.
Venue in homicide cases where crime is committed partly in one county and partly in another, 73 ALR3d 907.
8.10 et seq., Murder (see also 8.00 et seq., Homicide; 8.21 Felony Murder; 8.37 et seq., Manslaughter) (BIBLIO 8.10 et seq.)
The Absence of Malice? In re Christian S. (94) 7 C4th 768, the Second Wind of the Imperfect Self-Defense Doctrine. K.P. McGee, 25 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 297-330 Spring 1995.
Attempted Murder — Proper Direction on “Intention” [Great Britain], Coutts, 55 J.Crim.L. 33, Feb. 1991.
The Death of An Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases. M.S. Klasing, 22 Pepp. L. Rev 933-79 April 1995.
From Keeler v. Superior Court [(70) 470 P2d 617] to People v. Davis [(94) 872 P2d 591]: The Definition of Fetal Murder in California. A.H. Hsu, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 219-41 Fall ’95.
Homicide by automobile as murder, 21 ALR3d 116.
Homicide: liability where death immediately results from treatment or mistreatment of injury inflicted by defendant, 50 ALR5th 467.
Inference of malice or intent to kill where killing is by blow without weapon, 22 ALR2d 854.
Instructions as to presumption of deliberation and premeditation, 86 ALR2d 659; 96 ALR2d 1435.
Modern status of the rules requiring malice “aforethought,” “deliberation,” or “premeditation,” as elements of murder in the first degree, 18 ALR4th 961.
Malice Aforethought in California: A History of Legislative Abdication and Judicial Vacillation, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313 (1999).
Murder — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Knapman and Smith, Crim. L.Rev. 903, Dec. 1989.
Murder — Joint Enterprise — Intention — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Smith and Knapman, Crim.L.Rev. 338, May 1987.
Murder — Mens Rea — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Metcalfe and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 117, Feb. 1988.
Parricide and Mental Illness: A Study of 12 Cases. F. Millaud et al., Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 173-82 Spring 1996.
Premeditation and Deliberation in California: Returning to a Distinction Without a Difference, 36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 261 (2002).
Reforming California’s Homicide Law, 23 Pepp. L. Rev. 495 (1996).
Second Degree Murder Replaces Voluntary Manslaughter in Illinois: Problems Solved, Problems Created (Illinois Judicial Conference Symposium), Haddad, 19 Loyola U. of Chicago L.J. 995, Spring 1988.
8.20 Premeditation/Deliberation (BIBLIO 8.20)
Homicide: Presumption of deliberation or premeditation from the circumstances attending the killing, 96 ALR2d 1435.
Homicide: Presumption of deliberation or premeditation from the fact of killing, 86 ALR2d 656.
Malice Aforethought in California: A History of Legislative Abdication and Judicial Vacillation, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313 (1999).
Premeditation and Deliberation in California: Returning to a Distinction Without a Difference, 36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 261 (2002).
8.21 Felony Murder (see also 8.00 et seq., Homicide; 8.10 et seq., Murder; 8.37 et seq., Manslaughter) (BIBLIO 8.21)
Application of felony-murder doctrine where person killed was co-felon, 89 ALR4th 683.
Application of felony-murder doctrine where the felony relied upon is an includible offense with the homicide, 40 ALR3d 1341.
Criminal liability where act of killing is done by one resisting felony or other unlawful act committed by defendant, 56 ALR3d 239.
The Death of An Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases. M.S. Klasing, 22 Pepp. L. Rev 933-79 April 1995.
Duress and Provocation as Excuses to Murder: Salutary Lessons From Recent Anglo-American Jurisprudence. A. Reed, 6 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 51-92 Fall 1996.
From Keeler v. Superior Court [(70) 470 P2d 617] to People v. Davis [(94) 872 P2d 591]: The Definition of Fetal Murder in California. A.H. Hsu, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 219-41 Fall ’95.
Judicial abrogation of felony-murder doctrine, 13 ALR4th 1226.
Malice Aforethought in California: A History of Legislative Abdication and Judicial Vacillation, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313 (1999).
Murder in Course of Aggravated Burglary — Joint Enterprise — Foresight of the Possibility of Violence — Adequacy of Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Rees and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 119, Feb. 1990.
A Pattern Jury Instruction for Felony Murder [Pennsylvania], Murphy, 94 Dickinson L.Rev. 489, Winter 1990.
Proper Jury Instruction Concerning Causation Necessary to Support Felony Murder Conviction [survey of recent developments in New Jersey law], Flynn, 17 Seton Hall L.Rev. 185, Winter 1987.
State v. Shane: Confessions of Infidelity as Reasonable Provocation for Voluntary Manslaughter, 19 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 977 (1993).
What constitutes termination of felony for purpose of felony-murder rule, 58 ALR3d 851.
8.22 Destructive Device, Explosive, Etc. (BIBLIO 8.22)
Possession of bomb, Molotov cocktail, or similar device as criminal offense, 42 ALR3d 1230.
8.24 Murder by Torture (BIBLIO 8.24)
What constitutes murder by torture, 83 ALR3d 1222.
8.25 Lying in Wait (BIBLIO 8.25)
What constitutes “lying in wait”, 89 ALR2d 1140.
8.32 Second Degree Felony Murder (BIBLIO 8.32)
From Keeler v. Superior Court [(70) 470 P2d 617] to People v. Davis [(94) 872 P2d 591]: The Definition of Fetal Murder in California. A.H. Hsu, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 219-41 Fall ’95.
What felonies are inherently or foreseeably dangerous to human life for purposes of felony-murder doctrine, 50 ALR3d 397.
8.40 et seq., Manslaughter (see also 8.00 et seq., Homicide; 8.10 et seq., Murder; 8.21 Felony Murder; 8.42 et seq., Provocation/Heat of Passion) (BIBLIO 8.40)
Constructive Manslaughter — Unlawful Act [Great Britain], Cooper, 53 J.Crim.L. 419, Nov. 1989.
The Death of An Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases. M.S. Klasing, 22 Pepp. L. Rev 933-79 April 1995.
From Keeler v. Superior Court [(70) 470 P2d 617] to People v. Davis [(94) 872 P2d 591]: The Definition of Fetal Murder in California. A.H. Hsu, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 219-41 Fall ’95.
Heat of Passion and Wife Killing: Men who Batter/Men who Kill, Coker, 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 71, 82-84 (1992).
Homicide: liability where death immediately results from treatment or mistreatment of injury inflicted by defendant, 50 ALR5th 467.
Manslaughter by Reckless Driving — Common Law and Statutory Offense — Same Ingredients — Direction on Recklessness Comprehensive [Great Britain], Williams and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 260, April 1983.
Parricide and Mental Illness: A Study of 12 Cases. F. Millaud et al., Int’l J.L. & Psychiatry 173-82 Spring 1996.
Propriety of manslaughter conviction in prosecution for murder, absent proof of necessary elements of manslaughter, 19 ALR4th 861.
When “Heterosexual” Men Kill “Homosexual” Men: Reflections on Provocation Law, Sexual Advances, and the “Reasonable Man” Standard. [R.B. Mison, Discussion of Homophobia in Manslaughter: the Homosexual Advance as Insufficient Provocation. J. Dressler, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 133-78 Jan. ’92] 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 726-63. Winter ’95.
Who other than actor is liable for manslaughter, 95 ALR2d 175.
8.42 – 8.44 Provocation/Heat of Passion (BIBLIO 8.42 – BIBLIO 8.44)
Defendant is Entitled to a Jury Charge on Passion/Provocation Manslaughter When, Under an Objective Standard, There was Both Adequate Provocation and an Insufficient Time for Defendant to Regain Composure Prior to Slaying (Survey of Recent Developments in New Jersey Law), State v. Mauricio (N.J. 1990) 568 A.2d. 879, Ballot, 20 Seton Hall L.Rev. 971, Fall 1990.
Duress and Provocation as Excuses to Murder: Salutary Lessons From Recent Anglo-American Jurisprudence. A. Reed, 6 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 51-92 Fall 1996.
Murder — Provocation — Unwilled Act — Guidelines for Written Memorandum to Jury [South Australia], Fairall, 11 Crim.L.J. 231, Aug. 1987.
Provocation and Loss of Self-Control (Defenses and Jury Instructions in Murder Case) [Great Britain], Cowley, 56 J.Crim.L. 276, Aug. 1992.
8.65 Transferred Intent (BIBLIO 8.65)
Unintentional killing of or injury to third person during attempted self-defense, 55 ALR3d 620.
Use of Transferred Intent in Attempted Murder, Comment, 17 New Mexico L. Rev. 189, 1987.
8.66 Attempted Murder (BIBLIO 8.66)
Use of Transferred Intent in Attempted Murder, Comment, 17 New Mexico L. Rev. 189, 1987.
What constitutes attempted murder, 54 ALR3d 612.
8.75, 17.10 Acquittal First (BIBLIO 8.75, BIBLIO 17.10)
Conviction of lesser offense as bar to prosecution for greater on new trial, 61 ALR2d 1141.
Should Juries Be Able to Agree to Disagree? People v. Boettcher and the Unanimous Acquittal First Instruction [case note: People v. Boettcher (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987) 505 N.E.2d 594], Cooper, 54 Brooklyn L.Rev. 1027, Fall 1988.
The Unanimous Acquittal Instructions: A Rational Approach to Instructing Jurors on Lesser Included Offenses, Atlas, 16 Fordham Urban L.J. 331, Spring 1988.
8.81.4 Destructive Device See 8.22 Destructive Device, Explosive, Etc.) (BIBLIO 8.81.4)
8.84 et seq., Death Penalty (BIBLIO 8.84 et seq.)
The Federal Judicial Center (www.fjc.gov) has compiled information to assist district judges in managing death penalty cases. Its Resources for Managing Capital Cases site contains resources to help judges assigned to capital cases, including a 58-page Resource Guide for Managing Capital Cases, Vol. 1: Federal Death Penalty Trials and a compilation of orders, forms, instructions and other materials developed by judges who have handled death penalty cases.
To access the Motion for Stay and Petition for Stay in the McVeigh case, go to:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/mcveigh/mcveighstaypt0531.pdf (petition)
http://www.co.uscourts.gov/forms_PDF/96cr68_stay.PDF (motion)
The pleadings concern Brady and Jencks Act material admissions.
A (Genuinely) Modest Proposal Concerning the Death Penalty,” by Craig M. Bradley (March 2002) (http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v72/no1/bradley.aspxl)
A Lawyer’s Ethical Considerations When Her Client Elects Death: The Model Rules In The Capital Context. J.L. Richards, 3 San Diego Just. J. 127-75 Winter 1995.
Against the Antisympathy Instruction [case note: Calif. v. Brown (1987) 107 S. Ct. 837 (1987)], Sylva, 15 Hastings Const.L.Q. 669, Summer 1988.
American Bar Association: Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 31 Hofstra L. Rev. 913 (2003).
Annotation, Beliefs regarding capital punishment as disqualifying juror in capital case — post-Witherspoon cases, 39 ALR3d 550, supp. sec. 9.
But Was He Sorry? The Role of Remorse In Capital Sentencing, Theodore Eisenberg, Steven P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1599, Sept. 1998.
California Death Penalty Defense Manual, Penalty Phase Instructions, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Public Defenders Association, 1993.
The California Death Penalty: Prosecutors’ Use of Inconsistent Theories Plays Fast and Loose with the Courts and the Defendants, 36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 853 (2002).
The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiem for Furman? Steven F. Shatz and Nina Rivkind, 72 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 1283 (1997).
Capital Concerns: The Death Penalty in America: Reforming the Forensic Science Community to Avert the Ultimate Injustice, 15 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 381 (2004).
Capital Concerns: The Death Penalty in America: Ring Mandates Jury Consideration of Aggravators, But What About the Rest? The Case For Judicial Consideration of Mitigators and Judicial Sentencing, 15 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 343 (2004).
Capital Punishment (Sentencing; Project: Twentieth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure; U.S. Supreme Ct. and Cts. of App. 1989 – 1900), Menard, Grossenbacher and Silverstein, 79 Georgetown L.J. 1123, April 1991.
Capital Punishment in the Age of Terrorism, 41 Catholic Law. 187 (2001).
Childhood Abuse and Adult Murder: Implications for the Death Penalty, Crocker, 77 North Carolina Law Review 1143 (1999).
Common Sense Justice And Capital Punishment: Problematizing the “Will of the People,” Craig Haney, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 303, June/September, 1997.
Comprehension of Judges’ Instructions in the Penalty Phase of a Capital Trial; Focus on Mitigating Circumstances, Luginbuhl, 16 L. and Human Behavior 203, April 1992.
Concepts of Culpability and Deathworthiness: Differentiating Between Guilt and Punishment In Death Penalty Cases, Phyllis L. Crocker, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 21, October, 1997
Confusing Jury Instructions in Death Case Accepted as Grounds for Appeal, Sargeant, 28 Trial 17, Oct. 1992.
Consecutive Life Sentences treated as One General Life Sentence for Parole Purposes and Great Deference given to Trial Judges in Continuing Jury Deliberations in Capital Cases (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1990), Daley, 43 S. Carolina L.Rev. 47, Autumn, 1991.
“Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries in Capital Cases,” by Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson and Paul Marcus (January 2002)
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/working-papers/open/garvey/weeks.aspxl)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Nineteenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1988 – 1989), Zipps, Sander, Konstantaras, Pattermann and Mejia, 78 Georgetown L.J. 1277, April 1990.
Deborah W. Denno, Review Essay: “Death is Different” and Other Twists of Fate: The Death Penalty in the Nineties: An Examination of the Modern System of Capital Punishment. By Welsh W. White, 83 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 437 (1992).
Death Penalty (Supreme Court Review), Bernstein, 24 Trial 94, May 1988.
Deathly Errors: Juror Misperceptions Concerning Parole in the Imposition of the Death Penalty, Paduano and Smith, 18 Columbia Human Rights L.Rev. 211, Spring 1987.
Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? P.M. Tiersma, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 1-49, 1995.
Due Process Requirements Of Jury Charges In Capital Cases: Simmons v. South Carolina ((1994) 114 S.Ct. 2187), E.W. Richardson, 64 U. Cin. L. Rev. 755-96. Winter 1996.
The Eighth Amendment and Sympathy Instructions to Juries in Death Penalty Cases, Jacobus, 10 Harvard J. of L. and Pub. Policy 757, Summer 1987.
Foreclosed Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors’ Predispositions, Guilt-Trial Experience and Premature Decision Making, William J. Bowers, Marla Sandys and Benjamin D. Steiner, 83 Cornell L.Rev. 1476, Sept. 1998.
Forcible Medication Resulting in Execution – Why Singleton v. Norris Is Necessary to Ensure Governmental Efficiency, 26 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 65 (2003).
Government Psychiatric Examinations and the Death Penalty. W.S. White, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 869-94, Fall 1995.
Herrera v. Collins (93) 113 SCt 853; A New Innocence Principle? G. Bylinsky, 11 Harv. Black Letter L.J. 191-203 Spring 1994.
Herrera v. Collins (93) 113 SCt 853: Assuming the Constitution Prohibits the Execution of an Innocent Person, Is The Needle Worth the Search? P. Tanner, 11 Harv. BlackLetter L.J. 191- 203 Spring 1994.
Illinois Death Penalty Instructions too Confusing; Killer to be Resentenced, Sargeant, 29 Trial 94, Feb. 1993.
Imposing the Death Penalty on Capital Defendants Who are Mentally Retarded is Not Prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution if Instructions to the Jury Allow for the Consideration of Mental Retardation as a Mitigating Factor [case note: Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) 109 S.Ct. 2934, Hinton, 39 Drake L.Rev. 921, Summer 1990.
Integrating Theories for Capital Trials: Developing the Theory of Life, Mary Ann Tally, The Champion, November 1998, p. 34.
The Meaning of Life for Virginia Jurors and Its Effect on Reliability in Capital Sentencing, Hood, 75 Va.L.Rev. 1605, Nov. 1989.
Mills v. Maryland [108 S. Ct. 1860]: The Supreme Court Guarantees the Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances Pursuant to Lockett v. Ohio [98 S. Ct. 2954], 38 Cath. U.L.Rev. 907, Sum. 1989.
Mumia Abu-Jamal and the “Death Row Phenomenon.” D.P. Blank. 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1625-59. (July 1996).
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Death Penalty. D.D. Burke and M.A. Nixon, 38 How. L.J. 183-99 Fall 1994.
Prohibiting The Execution of The Mentally Retarded, 53 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 171 (2002).
Re-evaluating the Role of the Jury in Capital Cases after Ring v. Arizona, 59 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 633 (2004).
Religion’s Role In The Administration Of The Death Penalty: Religious Neutrality And The Death Penalty, 9 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 191 (2000).
Reflections On The Juvenile Death Penalty: Contravention Of Precendent And Public Opinion, Kim A. Lechner, 15 In Pub. Interest 113 1996-1997.
Ring v. Arizona: The Sixth and Eighth Amendments Collide: Out of the Wreckage Emerges a Constitutional Safeguard for Capital Defendants, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 519 (2004).
Saving Lives Through Peaceful Means, Michael Ogul, FORUM, November 1998, Volume 25, No. 4., p. 29.
Sifting Through the Fallout of N. Carolina’s Death Penalty Jurisprudence: Getting Down to the Real McKoy (Survey of Developments in N. Carolina Law, 1990) [case note: McKoy v. N. Carolina (1990) 110 S.Ct. 1227, Martin, 69 N. Carolina L.Rev. 1504, Sept. 1991.
Simmons v. South Carolina [114 SCt 2187 (1994)]: Safe-Guarding A Capital Defendant’s Right To Fair Sentencing. M. Zaug, 26 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 511-47 Spring 1995.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that defendant committed murder while under sentence of imprisonment, in confinement or correctional custody, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 67 ALR4th 942.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that defendant was previously convicted of or committed other violent offense, had history of violent conduct, posed continuing threat to society, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 65 ALR4th 838.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that in committing murder, defendant created risk of death or injury to more than one person, to many persons, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 64 ALR4th 837.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was committed for pecuniary gain, as consideration or in expectation of receiving something of monetary value, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 66 ALR4th 417.
Sufficiency of evidence, for death penalty purposes, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was committed in course of committing, attempting, or fleeing from other offense, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 67 ALR4th 887.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was committed to avoid arrest or prosecution, to effect escape from custody, to hinder governmental function or enforcement of law, and the like–post-Gregg cases, 64 ALR4th 755.
Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was heinous, cruel, depraved, or the like–post-Gregg cases, 63 ALR4th 478.
Symposium: Victims And The Death Penalty: Inside And Outside The Courtroom: The Capital Jury And Empathy: The Problem of Worthy And Unworthy Victims, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 343 (2003).
The Supreme Court Guarantees the Consideration of Mitigation Circumstances Pursuant to Lockett v. Ohio [case note: Mills v. Maryland (1988) 108 S.Ct. 1860], Strassmann, 38 Catholic U. L.Rev. 907, Summer 1989.
Supreme Court Ruling Seen as Blow to Maryland Death Penalty, 19 Crim. Just. Newsletter 5, June 15, 1988.
Supreme Court’s views on Constitutionality of death penalty and procedures under which it is imposed, 51 L. Ed. 2d 886.
Supreme Court’s views on Constitutionality of death penalty and procedures under which it is imposed or carried out, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1001.
Taking The Death Penalty Personally: Justice Thurgood Marshall. R. Coyne, 47 Okla. L. Rev. 35-54 Spring 1994.
“The Trial For Life: Effective Assistance Of Counsel In Death Penalty Cases,” G. Goodpaster, 58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 299 (May 1983).
Jonathan P. Tomes, “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: The Use of Mitigation Experts in Death Penalty Litigation,” 24 AM. J. CRIM. L. 359 (1997).
Unconstitutional Jury Instructions in Death Penalty Cases — Was the Missouri Supreme Court’s Reliance on Walton [Walton v. Arizona (1990) 110 S.Ct. 3047] Correct in Feltrop v. Missouri [(1991) 111 S.Ct. 2918]?, Estrin, 12 Pace L.Rev. 579, Fall 1992.
The Utility of Witt: Understanding the Language of Death Qualification, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 677 (2002).
Validity of death penalty, under Federal Constitution, as affected by consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances–Supreme Court cases, 111 L. Ed. 2d 947.
Victims and the Death Penalty: Inside and Outside the Courtroom: Constitutional Implications of Crime Victims as Participants, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 282 (2003).
The Victim Impact Statement And Capital Crimes: Trial By Jury And Death By Character. C.A. Rhodes, 21 Southwstrn. U. L. Rev. 1-44, Spring 1994.
Was Death Different Then Than It Is Now? The Opportunity Presented to the Supreme Court by Summerlin v. Stewart, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1731 (2004).
Will the Punishment Fit the Victims? The Case for Pre-Trial Disclosure, and the Uncharted Future of Victim Impact Information in Capital Jury Sentencing. J.F. Anderson, 28 Rutgers L.J. 369-434,. Winter 1997.
8.83 See 17.42 Penalty, Consideration by Jury (BIBLIO 8.83)
9.00 et seq., Assault and Battery (BIBLIO 9.00)
Admissibility Of Threats To Defendant Made By Third Parties To Support Claim Of Self-Defense In Criminal Prosecution For Assault Or Homicide, 55 ALR5th 449, and Later Case Service.
Attempt to commit assault as criminal offense, 79 ALR2d 597. 1, 3.
Consent as defense to charge of criminal assault and battery, 58 ALR3d 662.
Criminal Law–Resisting Arrest–Unlawful Arrest–The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Held That Resistance to an Arrest Found to be Unlawful Cannot Result in a Conviction For Resisting Arrest But Can Result in a Conviction For Aggravated Assault. A.W. Tauson, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 755-75 Spring 1996.
Effect of failure or refusal of court to instruct on assault and battery, 58 ALR2d 808.
Intent to do physical harm as essential element of crime of assault with deadly or dangerous weapon, 92 ALR2d 635.
Liability of hotel or motel operator for injury to guest resulting from assault by third party, 28 ALR4th 80.
Single act affecting multiple victims as constituting multiple assaults or homicides, 8 ALR4th 960.
9.16.1 et seq., 9.16.2 et seq., 16.480 Stalking (BIBLIO 9.16.1 et seq., BIBLIO 9.16.2 et seq., BIBLIO 16.480)
Are Stalking Laws Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad? Boychuk, (1994) 88 NW U L Rev 769, 784-802.
Stalking and The First Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis of State Stalking Laws. B. Bjerregaard, Crim. L. Bull. 307-41 July-Aug. 1996.
Validity, Construction, and Application of Stalking Statutes, 29 ALR 5th 487 (1996).
9.23 et seq., 16.100 et seq., Crimes Against Police Officer, etc. (BIBLIO 9.23 et seq., BIBLIO 16.100 et seq.)
Criminal Law–Resisting Arrest–Unlawful Arrest–The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Held That Resistance to an Arrest Found to be Unlawful Cannot Result in a Conviction For Resisting Arrest But Can Result in a Conviction For Aggravated Assault. A.W. Tauson, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 755-75 Spring 1996.
Modern status of rules as to right to forcefully resist illegal arrest, 44 ALR3d 1078.
Right to resist excessive force used in accomplishing lawful arrest, 77 ALR3d 281.
9.35.1 Battered Woman/Child Syndrome (see also 5.12 et seq., Self Defense) (BIBLIO 9.35.1)
Admissibility at criminal prosecution of expert testimony on battering parent syndrome, 43 ALR4th 120.
Admissibility of expert medical testimony on battered child syndrome, 98 ALR3d 306.
Assisting the Jury in Understanding Victimization: Expert Psychological Testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome and Rape Trauma Syndrome, Murphy, 25 Colum. J.L. and Soc. Probs. 277, 1992.
Battered Child Defendant in California: The Admissibility of Evidence Regarding the Effects of Abuse on a Child’s Honest and Reasonable Belief of Imminent Danger. C.C. Azarcon, 26 Pa. L.J. 831-79 April 1995.
Battered Children Who Kill: Developing an Appropriate Legal Response. C.S. Ryan, 10 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics and Pub. Pol’y. 301-39 1996.
The Battered Wife’s Dilemma: To Kill or To Be Killed, Eber, 32 Hastings L.J. 895, 1981.
The Battered Woman Syndrome and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony, Breyer, 28 Crim. L. Bull. 99, 1992.
Battered Woman Syndrome and Other Subtypes of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Strengths and Liabilities in the Courtroom, Boyd and Balash, CACJ/Forum, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1992.
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Criminal Defense, Walus-Wigle and Meloy, 16 J. Psychiatry & Law, 389, 1988.
Battered Women and the Equal Protection Clause: Will the Constitution Help Them When the Police Won’t, Eppler, 95 Yale L.J. 788, 1986.
Battered Women and the Full Benefit of Self-Defense Laws, Duiven, 12 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 103-11 (1997).
Battered Woman Syndrome: A Tool For Batterers? M.F. Griffith, 64 Fordham L. Rev. 141-98 Oct. 1995.
Battered Women’s Advocates Want Safeguards for Children, Jordan, Daily Journal. [Available from FORECITE Article Bank No. A- 12(d).]
The Battered Woman, Self-Defense, and the Grand Jury: Why the Jury Refused to Indict. V.L. Lutz, C.M. Bonomolo, 32 Trial 46-7+ Aug. 1996.
Battered Women, Straw Men, and Expert Testimony: A Comment on State v. Kelly, Acker and Toch, 21 Crim. L. Bull. 125, 1985.
Beyond the Juror’s Ken: Battered Women, Walker et al., 7 Vt. L.Rev. 1, 1982.
Beyond Self-Defense: The Use of Battered Woman Syndrome in Duress Defenses. S. D. Appel, 1994 U. Ill. L. Rev. 955-80 1994.
Browne, When Battered Women Kill, The Free Press, 1987.
Clemency for Killers? Pardoning Battered Women Who Strike Back. C.N. Becker, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 297-342 Nov. 1995.
The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Battering: Understanding the Problem, Forging the Solutions, Waits, 60 Wash. L.Rev. 267, 1985.
A Critique and Proposed Solution to the Adverse Examination Problem Raised by Battered Woman Syndrome Testimony in State v. Hennum, Madison, 74 Minn. L.Rev. 1023, 1990.
The Defense of Battered Women Who Kill, Cipparone, 135 U. Penn. L.Rev. 427, 1987.
Describing and Changing Women’s Self-Defense Work and the Problems of Expert Testimony on Battering, Schneider, 9 Women’s Rights L.Rep. 195, 1986.
DSM-III-R Criteria for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder [reprint from the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 1987], CACJ/Forum, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1992.
Duty of trial court to instruct on self-defense, in absence of request by accused, 56 ALR2d 1170.
Educating Juries: The Battered Woman Defense in Canada, Brodsky, 25 Alberta L.Rev. 461, Spring 1987.
The Effects of Trauma on Personality Functioning [paper presented to annual meeting], Society for Personality Assessment, Mar. 1991.
Equal Rights to Trial for Women: Sex Bias in the Law of Self-Defense, Schneider, 15 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. 623, 1980.
The Excuse of Self-Defense, Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill, Rosen, 36 Am. U.L. Rev. 11, 1986.
The Expert as Educator: A Proposed Approach to the Use of Battered Woman Syndrome Expert Testimony [recent developments], 35 Vand. L.Rev. 741, 1982.
Expert Testimony on the Battered Woman Syndrome is Admissible, Kuhns, 21 Williamette L.Rev. 410, 1985.
Explaining the Legal System’s Inadequate Response to the Abuse of Women: A Lack of Coordination, Litsky, 8 N.Y.L.S. J. Hum. Rts., 149, Fall 1990.
Faking Battered Women Syndrome: An MCMI-2 Study [paper presented to annual meeting], Society for Personality Assessment, 1992.
The Hazards of Using the “Battered Child Syndrome” As Evidence of Self-Defense When Children Kill In Non-Confrontational Situations. L.Z. Houfek, 16 J. Juv. L. 91-114 1995.
How Will Battered Women Fare Under the New Welfare Reform? S.L. Howell. 12 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 140-50. 1997.
The Impact of Battered Woman Syndrome Testing on Jury Decision Making: La Vallee v. R. Considered, Schuller, 10 Windsor Y.B. Access to Justice 105, 1990.
Ineffective assistance of counsel: Battered spouse syndrome as defense to homicide or other criminal offense, 11 ALR5th 871.
The Meaning of Equality for Battered Women Who Kill Men in Self Defense, Crocker, 8 Harv. Women’s L.J. 121, 1985.
Mones, Forum Interview, Reilly, Forum, Vol. 19 No. 4, 1992.
Mones, When a Child Kills: Abused Children Who Kill Their Parents, Pocket Books, 1991.
Moore, Battered Women, Sage Publications, 1979.
New Thoughts About the Concept of Justification in the Criminal Law: A Critique of Fletcher’s Thinking and Rethinking, Dressler, 32 UCLA L.Rev. 61, 79, 1984.
Pagelow, Woman Battering: Victims and Their Experiences, Sage Publications, 1985.
Partially Determined Imperfect Self-Defense: The Battered Wife Kills and Tells Why, Creach, 34 Stan. L.Rev. 615, 630-631, 1982.
Police Response to Battered Women: A Critique and Proposals for Reform, Finesmith, 14 Seton Hall L.Rev. 74, 1983.
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and the Insanity Defense: A Critical Analysis, Packer, 36 J. of Psychiatry and L. 125, 1984.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Death Penalty. D.D. Burke and M.A. Nixon, 38 How. L.J. 183-99 Fall 1994.
Potential Uses for Expert Testimony: Ideas Toward the Representation of Battered Women Who Kill, Blackman, 9 Women’s Rts. L.Rep. 227, 1986.
The Psychodynamics of Family Violence [symposium at annual meeting], Society for Personality Assessment, 1992.
Recent Developments: Judging Domestic Violence, 10 Harv. Women’s L.J. 278, 1987.
The Right and the Reasonable, Fletcher, 98 Harv. L.Rev. 949, 954-955, 1985.
Rorschachs of Women Who Commit Homicide, Kaser-Boyd, J. of Personality Assessment, (in press).
Self-Defense and the Child Parricide Defendant: Should Courts Make a Distinction Between The Battered Woman and the Battered Child? M.A. Scott, 44 Drake L. Rev. 351-75 1996.
Self-Defense: Battered Woman Syndrome on Trial [comment], 20 Cal. W. L.Rev. 485, 1984.
The Spousal-Homicide Syndrome, Showalter, 3 Int’l J. Law & Psychiatry 117, 1980.
State v. Norman: Self-Defense Unavailable to Battered Women Who Kill Passive Abusers, Shad, 68 N.C. L.Rev. 1159, 1990.
‘Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder, Bernard, H. Vera, M. Vera and Newman, Bull. of the American Academy of Psychiatry and L., Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982.
Trend Analysis: Expert Testimony On Battering And Its Effects in Criminal Cases, 11 Wis. Women’s L.J. 75 (1996).
Walker, The Battered Woman, Harper and Row, 1979.
Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, Springer Pub. Co., 1984.
Walker, Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds, 1989.
Women Who Kill [paper presented at annual meeting], Kaser-Boyd, American Psychological Assoc., Aug. 1984.
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: The Battered Woman’s Syndrome Revisited, Kristal, 9 J. of Human Rights 111, 1991. Will the “Real” Battered Woman Please Stand Up? In Search of a Realistic Legal Definition of Battered Woman Syndrome. A.R. Callahan, 3 Am. U.J. Gender & L. 117-52 Fall 1994.
9.36 Child Abuse (see also 4.80, Parental Discipline) (BIBLIO 9.36)
Failure to provide medical attention for child as criminal neglect, 12 ALR2d 1047.
Parent’s involuntary confinement, or failure to care for child as result thereof, as evincing neglect, unfitness, or the like in dependency or divestiture proceeding, 79 ALR3d 417.
Using the Doctrine of Chances to Prove Actus Reus in Child Abuse and Acquaintance Rape: People v. Ewoldt Reconsidered. M. Cammack, 29 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 355 (1996).
Validity and construction of penal statute prohibiting child abuse, 1 ALR4th 38.
Why the System Fails Abused Children. 33 Trial 18-22+ March 1997.
Withholding Medical Treatment From Infants: When It Is Child Neglect, K. Knepper, 33 U. Louisville J. Family L. 1-53 Winter ’94/’95.
9.40 – 9.44 Robbery (BIBLIO 9.40 – BIBLIO 9.44)
Admissibility, in robbery prosecution, of evidence of other robberies, 42 ALR2d 854.
Admissibility of evidence of accused’s drug addiction or use to show motive for theft of property other than drugs, 2 ALR4th 1298.
Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 ALR4th 481.
Direction to Jury on Attempted Robbery [Great Britain], 56 J.Crim.L. 155, May 1992.
Effect of failure or refusal of court, in robbery prosecution, to instruct on assault and battery, 58 ALR2d 808.
Limiting effect of evidence of other robberies, 42 ALR4th 885.
Robbery, attempted robbery, or assault to commit robbery, as affected by intent to collect or secure debt or claim, 88 ALR3d 1309.
Single or separate larceny predicated upon stealing property from different owners at the same time, 37 ALR3d 1407.
Use of force or intimidation in retaining property or in attempting to escape, rather than in taking property, as element of robbery, 93 ALR3d 643.
9.46 Carjacking (BIBLIO 9.46)
Validity, Construction, and Application of State Carjacking Statutes, 100 A.L.R.5th 67, sec. 24(a).
9.50 Kidnapping (BIBLIO 9.50)
False imprisonment as included offense within charge of kidnapping, 68 ALR3d 828.
Kidnapping by fraud or false pretenses, 95 ALR2d 450.
Kidnapping or related offense by taking or removing of child by or under authority of parent or one in loco parentis, 20 ALR4th 823.
9.60 False Imprisonment (BIBLIO 9.60)
Criminal Liability for False Imprisonment. 38 Cal. L. R. 498.
False imprisonment: Liability of private citizen, calling on police for assistance after disturbance or trespass, for false arrest by officer, 98 ALR3d 542.
9.94 Criminal Threats (BIBLIO 9.94)
Threats, Free Speech, and the Jurisprudence of the Federal Criminal Law, 2002 BYU L. Rev. 829 (2002).
9.95 Hate Crimes (BIBLIO 9.95)
Hate Crimes. D. Greene, 48 U. Miami L.Rev. 905-11 March 1994.
Hate Crimes Legislation: Panacea or Protractor of Societal Ills? M.Z. Stanger, 3 San Diego Just. J. 419-46, Summer 1995.
Punishing the Politically Incorrect Offender Through “Bias Motive” Enhancements: Compelling Necessity or First Amendment Folly? R. R. Riggs, 21 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 945-57, 1995.
10.00 et seq., Sex Crimes (BIBLIO 10.00 et seq.)
A Contract Reading of Rape Law: Redefining Force to Include Coercion, 37 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 57 (2003).
Admissibility, at criminal prosecution, of expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome, 42 ALR4th 879.
Admissibility, in prosecution for sex-related offense, of results of tests on semen or seminal fluids, 75 ALR4th 897.
Admissibility, in rape case, of evidence that accused raped or attempted to rape person other than prosecutrix, 2 ALR4th 330.
Admissibility of expert testimony as to criminal defendant’s propensity toward sexual deviation, 42 ALR4th 937.
Coming of Age in America: The Misapplication of Sex-Offender Registration and Community-Notification Laws to Juveniles, 91 Cal. L. Rev. 163 (2003).
Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 777 (1988).
Constitutional Law–Due Process and Equal Protection–California Becomes First State to Require Chemical Castration of Certain Sex Offenders (Act. of Sept. 17, 1996, Ch. 596, 1996 Cal.Stats. 92 [to be codified at PC 645]). 110 Harv. L. Rev. 799-804. January 1997.
Constitutionality of “rape shield” statute restricting use of evidence of victim’s sexual experiences, 1 ALR4th 283.
Entrapment defense in sex offense prosecutions, 12 ALR4th 413.
Fact that murder-rape victim was dead at time of penetration as affecting conviction for rape, 76 ALR4th 1147.
Mistake or lack of information as to victim’s age as defense to statutory rape, 8 ALR3d 1100.
Mistake or lack of information as to victim’s chastity as defense to statutory rape, 44 ALR3d 1434.
Modern status of admissibility, in forcible rape prosecution, of complainant’s prior sexual acts, 94 ALR3d 257.
Modern status of rule regarding necessity for corroboration of victim’s testimony in prosecution for sexual offense, 31 ALR4th 120.
Multiple instances of forcible intercourse involving same defendant and same victim as constituting multiple crimes of rape, 81 ALR3d 1228.
Necessity and sufficiency of cautionary instructions, in prosecution for rape, as to evidence of other similar offense, 77 ALR2d 906.
Necessity or permissibility of mental examination to determine competency or credibility of complainant in sexual offense prosecution, 45 ALR4th 310.
Propriety of, or prejudicial effect of omitting or of giving, instruction to jury, in prosecution for rape or other sexual offense, as to ease of making or difficulty of defending against such a charge, 92 ALR3d 866.
Rape or similar offense based on intercourse with woman who is allegedly mentally deficient, 31 ALR3d 1227.
Statutes relating to sexual psychopaths, 24 ALR2d 350.
Sex Abuse, Accusations of Lies, and Videotaped Testimony: A Proposal for a Federal Hearsay Exception in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. D.B. Lathi. 68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 507-40, Spring 1997.
Sexuality, Rape, And Mental Retardation, Deborah W. Denno. 1997 U. Ill. L.Rev. 315, 1997.
Symposium on the Admission of Prior Offense Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases. D.A. Nance, et al., 70 Chi.Kent L. Rev. 3-67 1994.
The Trauma of Testifying in Court for Child Victims of Sexual Assault v. the Accused’s Right to Confrontation. L.C. Brannon, 18 Law & Psychol. Rev. 439-60, Spring 1994.
Using the Doctrine of Chances to Prove Actus Reus in Child Abuse and Acquaintance Rape: People v. Ewoldt Reconsidered. M. Cammack, 29 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 355 (1996).
Validity of statute making sodomy a criminal offense, 20 ALR4th 1009.
Venue in rape cases where crime is committed partly in one place and partly in another, 100 ALR3d 1174.
What constitutes offense of “sexual battery,” 87 ALR3d 1250.
What constitutes penetration in prosecution for rape or statutory rape, 76 ALR3d 163.
Why the System Fails Abused Children. 33 Trial 18-22+ March 1997.
With Justice for Whom? The Presumption of Moral Innocence in Rape Trials,” by Stacey Pastel Dougan. (March 2002) Analysis and review of George P. Fletcher, “With Justice for Some: Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials” (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1995). (http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no2/dougan.aspxl)
12.00 et seq., Drug Offenses (BIBLIO 12.00 et seq.)
Abusive Prosecutors: Gender, Race & Class Discretion and the Prosecution of Drug-Addicted Mothers, Dwight L. Greene, (1991) 39 Buff. L.Rev. 737, 765.
Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of expert opinion allegedly stating whether drugs were possessed with intent to distribute–state cases, 83 ALR4th 629.
Admissibility, in prosecution for illegal sale of narcotics, of evidence of other sales, 93 ALR2d 1097.
Conviction of possession of illicit drugs found in premises of which defendant was in non-exclusive possession, 56 ALR3d 948.
Conviction of possession of illicit drugs found in automobile of which defendant was not sole occupant, 57 ALR3d 1319.
Minimum quantity of drug required to support claim that defendant is guilty of criminal “possession” of drug under state law, 4 ALR5th 1.
Modern status of the law concerning entrapment to commit narcotics offense–federal cases, 22 ALR Fed. 731.
Modern status of the law concerning entrapment to commit narcotics offense–state cases, 62 ALR3d 110.
Offense of carrying concealed weapon as affected by manner of carrying or place of concealment, 43 ALR2d 492.
Permitting unlawful use of narcotics in private home as criminal offense, 54 ALR3d 1297.
Propriety of instruction of jury on conscious avoidance of knowledge of nature of substance or transaction in prosecution for possession or distribution of drugs, 109 ALR Fed 710.
Prosecutions based upon alleged illegal possession of instruments to be used in violation of narcotics laws, 92 ALR3d 47.
Punishment for “Just Us” — A Constitutional Analysis of the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Statutes. L. A. Wytsma, student author, 3 Geo. Mason Indep. L. Rev. 473-513, Summer 1995.
State law criminal liability of licensed physician for prescribing or dispensing drug or similar controlled substance, 13 ALR5th 1.
Validity and construction of statute creating presumption or inference of intent to sell from possession of specified quantity of illegal drugs, 60 ALR3d 1128.
Validity, construction, and effect of state statute regulating sale of counterfeit or imitation controlled substances, 84 ALR4th 936.
What Is An Addict? An International Perspective, I. Harrison, 1 Med. L. Int’l 113-22. 1993.
12.40 Weapons Offenses (BIBLIO 12.40)
Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide In Three States. D. McDowall, et al., 86 (1) J. L. Criminology 193 (1995).
Fact that gun was broken, dismantled, or inoperable as affecting criminal responsibility under weapons statute, 81 ALR4th 745.
Fact that gun was unloaded as affecting criminal responsibility, 68 ALR4th 507.
Litigating Felon-With-A-Firearm Cases After Old Chief: Trial Strategies For Lawyers and Judges (Old Chief v. U.S. (97) 519 US 172 [136 LEd2d 574; 117 SCt 644]), James Joseph Duane, 12 Crim. Just. 18, Fall, 1997
Scope and effect of exception, in statute forbidding carrying of weapons, as to person on his own premises or at his place of business, 57 ALR3d 938.
Statutory presumption of possession of weapon by occupants of place or vehicle where it was found, 87 ALR3d 949.
Sufficiency of prior conviction to support prosecution under state statute prohibiting persons under indictment for, or convicted of, crime from acquiring, having, carrying, or using firearms or weapons, 39 ALR4th 983.
Validity, Construction, and Application of State or Local Law Prohibiting Manufacture, Possession, or Transfer of “Assault Weapon” (1996) 29 ALR5th 64.
What amounts to “control” under state statute making it illegal for felon to have possession or control of firearm or other dangerous weapon, 66 ALR4th 1240.
What constitutes a “bludgeon,” “blackjack,” or “billy” within meaning of criminal possession statute, 11 ALR4th 1272.
12.60 et seq., Drunk Driving (BIBLIO 12.60)
Automobiles: Driving under the influence, or when addicted to the use of drugs as criminal offense, 17 ALR3d 815.
Challenges to use of breath tests for drunk drivers based on claim that partition or conversion ratio between measured breath alcohol and actual blood alcohol is inaccurate, 90 ALR4th 155.
Construction and application of statutes creating presumption or other inference of intoxication from specified percentages of alcohol present in system, 16 ALR3d 748.
Destruction of ampoule used in alcohol breath test as warranting suppression of result of test, 19 ALR4th 509.
Do I Really Have a Choice? Compulsory Blood Tests on Drunk Drivers and the Fourth Amendment, 25 W. St. U.L. Rev. 43 (1997).
Drunk Driving and Related Vehicular Offenses: Necessity, Reiff, Robert S., (Lexis, 1999) § 14-2, p. 358 and § 17.4(r), p. 394.
“DWI: Challenging And Excluding HGN Tests,” by Troy McKinner, NACDL Champion, April 2002 (www.nacdl.org).
Kuwatch, California Drunk Driving Law, Fast Eddie Publishing Co., 1984.
Operation of bicycle as within drunk driving statutes, 73 ALR4th 1139.
Reckless driving as lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated or similar charge, 10 ALR4th 1252.
Suspension or revocation of driver’s license for refusal to take sobriety test, 88 ALR2d 1064.
Taylor, Drunk Driving Defense, Little, Brown and Company, 1991.
Validity, construction, and application of statutes directly proscribing driving with blood-alcohol level in excess of established percentage, 54 ALR4th 149.
What constitutes driving, operating, or being in control of motor vehicle for purposes of driving while intoxicated statutes, 93 ALR3d 7.
14.00 et seq., Theft Offenses (BIBLIO 14.00 et seq.)
Admissibility, in prosecution for obtaining money or property by fraud or false pretenses, of evidence of subsequent payments made by accused to victim, 10 ALR3d 572.
Admissibility of evidence of accused’s drug addiction or use to show motive for theft of property other than drugs, 2 ALR4th 1298.
Attempts to commit offenses of larceny by trick, confidence game, false pretenses, and the like, 6 ALR3d 241.
Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 ALR4th 481.
Jury Instructions for Fraud Cases, Kehoe and Hindman, 80 Ill. B.J. 20, Jan. 1992.
Larceny: Entrapment or consent, 10 ALR3d 1121.
Purse snatching as robbery or theft, 42 ALR3d 1381.
Reasonable expectation of payment as affecting offense under “worthless check” statutes, 9 ALR3d 719.
Single or separate larceny predicated upon stealing property from different owners at the same time, 37 ALR3d 1407.
Thief as accomplice of one charged with receiving stolen property, or vice versa, within rule requiring cautionary instruction, 74 ALR3d 560, §§ 3, 9, 13
What constitutes larceny “from a person”, 74 ALR3d 271.
When statute of limitations begins to run against criminal prosecution for embezzlement, fraud, false pretenses, or similar crimes, 77 ALR3d 689.
14.50 Burglary (BIBLIO 14.50)
Breaking and entering of inner door of building as burglary, 43 ALR3d 1147.
Maintainability of burglary charge, where entry into building is made with consent, 58 ALR4th 335.
Occupant’s absence from residential structure as affecting nature of offense as burglary or breaking and entering, 20 ALR4th 349.
Validity, construction and application of statutes relating to burglars’ tools, 33 ALR3d 798.
What is “building” or “house” within burglary or breaking and entering statute, 68 ALR4th 425.
14.80 Arson (BIBLIO 14.80)
Expert and opinion evidence as to cause or origin of fire, 88 ALR2d 230.
Pyromania and the criminal law, 51 ALR4th 1243.
Vacancy or nonoccupancy of building as affecting its character as “dwelling” as regards arson, 44 ALR2d 1456.
16.100 et seq., Misdemeanor Crimes Against Police Officer, etc. (see 9.20 et seq., Crimes Against Police Officer, etc.) (BIBLIO 16.100 et seq.)
16.620 Tampering With Vehicle (BIBLIO 16.620)
Validity and construction of statute making it a criminal offense to “tamper” with motor vehicle or contents, or to obscure registration plates, 57 ALR3d 606.
16.840 Reckless Driving (BIBLIO 16.840)
What amounts to reckless driving of motor vehicle within statute making such a criminal offense, 52 ALR2d 1337.
17.00 Inconsistent Verdicts (BIBLIO 17.00)
The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds? Our Foolish Law of Inconsistent Verdicts, Eric L. Muller, 111 Harv.L.Rev. 771, January 1998.
Inconsistent Jury Verdict Is Reviewable When It Is The Result Of Misleading Jury Instructions (State v. Grey (96) 147 N.J. 4 [685 A2d 923]), Michelle M. Bufano, 27 Seton Hall L. Rev. 845, 1997.
Inconsistency of criminal verdict as between different counts of indictment or information, 18 ALR3d 259.
Inconsistency of criminal verdict with verdict on another indictment or information tried at same time, 16 ALR3d 866.
Inconsistency of criminal verdicts as between two or more defendants tried together, 22 ALR3d 717.
17.01 Unanimity (BIBLIO 17.01)
Compound/Complex Criminal Statutes and the Constitution: Demanding Unanimity as to Predicate Acts, Eric S. Miller, (1995) 104 Yale L.J. 2277.
Direction to Jury — More than One Factual Basis for Establishing Offence or Defence [Great Britain], Crim.L.Rev. 177, March 1988.
Jury Unanimity on Questions of Material Fact: When Six and Six do not Equal Twelve [Canada], Gelowitz, 12 Queen’s L.J. 66, Winter 1987.
Remoteness in time of other similar offenses committed by accused as affecting admissibility of evidence thereof in prosecution for sex offenses, 88 ALR3d 8.
Requirement of jury unanimity as to mode of committing crime under statute setting forth the various modes by which offense may be committed, 75 ALR4th 91.
Validity and efficacy of accused’s waiver of unanimous verdict, 97 ALR3d 1253.
17.02 Alternative Offenses/Verdicts (BIBLIO 17.02)
Alternative Verdict — Duty of Judge [Great Britain], Knapman and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 760, Nov. 1988.
Alternative Verdicts [Great Britain], Coutts, 51 J. of Crim.L. 171, May 1987.
Alternative Offenses: Let the Jury Choose [Great Britain], Doran, 1992 Crim.L.Rev. 843, Dec. 1992.
Consideration of Alternative Offenses [Great Britain], Coutts, 55 J.Crim.L. 178, May 1991.
Direction on Alternative Offence [Great Britain], Coutts, 55 J.Crim.L. 1, Feb. 1991.
17.03 Multiple Verdicts (BIBLIO 17.03)
Multiple instances of forcible intercourse involving same defendant and same victim as constituting multiple crimes of rape, 81 ALR3d 1228.
Single act affecting multiple victims as constituting multiple assaults or homicides, 8 ALR4th 960.
Single or separate larceny predicated upon stealing property from different owners at the same time, 37 ALR3d 1407.
17.10 Acquittal First (see 8.75, Acquittal First) (BIBLIO 17.10)
17.10 et seq., Lesser Included Offenses (see also 17.10 et seq., Lesser Related Offenses) (BIBLIO 17.10 et seq.)
Abduction and kidnapping: False imprisonment as included offense, 68 ALR3d 828.
Bribery: Instructions as to lesser included offense charge in federal prosecution, 107 ALR Fed 427.
Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations With Lesser Offenses At Trial. A.L. Adlestein, 37 Wm. & Nary L. Rev. 199-297 Fall 1995.
Constitutional Limitations on the Lesser Included Offense Doctrine, Blair, 21 Amer. Crim.L.Rev. 445, 1984.
Courts Must Instruct on Lesser-Included Offenses That Fit Within the Elements of the Greater Charged Offense, Regardless of the Evidence [case note: State v. Jeffries (Iowa 1988) 430 N.W.2d. 728], Benzoni, 39 Drake L.Rev. 549, Winter 1990.
Cure of error, in instruction as to one offense, by conviction of higher or lesser offense, modern status of law regarding, 15 ALR4th 118.
Effect of failure or refusal of court, in robbery prosecution to instruct on assault and battery, 58 ALR2d 808.
Homicide: Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge to jury in federal homicide prosecution, 101 ALR Red 615.
Jury Charges and Lesser Included Offenses (1985 Survey of S. Carolina Law), Norton, 38 S. Carolina L.Rev. 79, Autumn 1986.
The Lesser-Included Offense Doctrine: A Present Day Analysis For Practitioners, Barnett, 5 Conn. L. Rev. 255, 1972.
The Lesser Included Offense Doctrine And The Constitution: The Development of Due Process and Double Jeopardy Remedies, James A. Shellenberger and James A. Strazzella, 79 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
Lesser Included Offenses: Felony Murder (Recent Developments in Utah Law) [case note: State v. Hansen (Utah 1986) 734 P.2d. 421], Carmack, 1988 Utah L.Rev. 203, Winter 1988.
Looking at Lesser Included Offenses on an All or Nothing Basis: State v. Bullard and the Sporting Approach to Criminal Justice (Survey of Developments in N. Carolina Law, 1990) [case note: State v. Bullard (N.C. Ct. App. 1990) 389 S.E.2d 123], Hamrick, 69 N. Carolina L.Rev. 1470, Sept. 1991.
Mail Crime: Right of defendant in federal prosecution for offense involving United States mail to jury charge on lesser included offense, 106 ALR Fed 292.
Manslaughter: Propriety of manslaughter conviction in prosecution for murder, absent proof of necessary elements of manslaughter, 19 ALR4th 861.
Michigan’s Lesser Included Offense Rule: Handling the Many-headed Hydra, 67 U. Det. L.Rev. 95, Fall 1989.
Narcotics: Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge in federal prosecution of narcotics defendant, 106 ALR Fed 236.
Procedural Due Process and the Lesser Included Offense Doctrine, Mascolo, 50 Albany L. Rev. 263, 1986.
Property Rights Crime: Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge to jury in federal prosecution for crime involving property rights, 105 ALR Fed 669.
Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge to jury in federal criminal case, 100 ALR Fed 481.
Propriety of manslaughter conviction in prosecution for murder, absent proof of necessary elements of manslaughter, 19 ALR4th 861.
Sex Crime: Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge to jury in federal sex-crime prosecution, 100 ALR Fed 535.
Tax Crime: Propriety of lesser-included-offense jury charge in prosecution of federal tax-crime defendant, 102 ALR Fed 128.
Time-barred: Instructions as to conviction of lesser offense, against which statute of limitations has run, where statute has not run against offense with which defendant is charged, 47 ALR2d 890.
Time-barred: Jury Instruction on Time-Barred, Lesser Included Offense Constitute Waiver of Statute of Limitations Defense (Annual Survey of Rhode Island Law for the 1991 – 1992 Term), Duffy, 26 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 525, Summer 1992.
The Unanimous Acquittal Instructions: A Rational Approach to Instructing Jurors on Lesser Included Offenses, Atlas, 16 Fordham Urban L.J. 331, Spring 1988.
Truth in Jury Instructions: Reforming the Law of Lesser Included Offenses, John F. Yetter, 9 St. Thomas L. Rev. 603, Spring 1997.
When “Lesser” is More: The Case for Reviving the Constitutional Right To A Lesser Included Offense, Michael G. Pattillo, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 429 (1998).
17.10 et seq., Lesser Related Offenses (see also 17.10 et seq., Lesser Included Offenses) (BIBLIO 17.10 et seq.)
Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations With Lesser Offenses At Trial. A.L. Adlestein, 37 Wm. & Nary L. Rev. 199-297 Fall 1995.
Lesser-related state offense instructions: Modern status, 50 ALR4th 1081.
Right to Jury Instructions on Closely Related Offenses, Comment, 6 Whittier L. Rev. 1011, 1984.
17.15 et seq., Enhancements (BIBLIO 17.15 et seq.)
But I Was Just a Kid!: Does Using Juvenile Adjudications to Enhance Adult Sentences Run Afoul of Apprendi V. New Jersey?, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 837 (2005).
Chronological or procedural sequence of former convictions as affecting enhancement of penalty under habitual offender statutes, 7 ALR5th 263.
Fact that gun was broken, dismantled, or inoperable as affecting criminal responsibility under weapons statute, 81 ALR4th 745.
Fact that gun was unloaded as affecting criminal responsibility, 68 ALR4th 507.
“Regarding Troy: Will The Real Abusers Please Stand Up,” 24 UWLA LR 379.
“That Isn’t Fair, Judge”: the Costs of Using Prior Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications in Criminal Court Sentencing, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 1323 (2004).
What amounts to “control” under state statute making it illegal for felon to have possession or control of firearm or other dangerous weapon, 66 ALR4th 1240.
With The Intent To Inflict Such Injury: The Courts And The Legislature Create Confusion In California Penal Code Section 12022.7,” 28 San Diego LR 963.
17.20 Great Bodily Injury (BIBLIO 17.20)
Sufficiency of bodily injury to support charge of aggravated assault, 5 ALR5th 243.
“Regarding Troy: Will The Real Abusers Please Stand Up,” 24 UWLA LR 379.
With The Intent To Inflict Such Injury: The Courts And The Legislature Create Confusion In California Penal Code Section 12022.7,” 28 San Diego LR 963.
17.24.1 Hate Crimes Enhancement (see 9.95) (BIBLIO 17.24.1)
17.24.1 Criminal Street Gang Enhancement (see 6.50) (BIBLIO 17.24.1)
17.30 et seq., Cautionary/Limiting Instructions (BIBLIO 17.30 et seq.)
Addressing jurors individually, failure to instruct to disregard remarks as affecting misconduct of counsel in addressing individually or by name particular juror during argument, 55 ALR2d 1203.
Closing Arguments — Improper Remarks — Jury Instructions [Massachusetts], Mitnick, 75 Mass.L.Rev. 42, March 1990.
Defendant’s absence from trial: Necessity and content of instructions to jury respecting reasons for or inferences from accused’s absence from state criminal trial, 31 ALR4th 676.
Duty to give cautionary instruction against emotional appeal of photograph of corpse, 73 ALR2d 800.
Effect of Rule 201(g) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, providing for instruction in criminal case that jury need not accept as conclusive fact judicially noticed, on propriety of taking judicial notice on appeal under Rule 201(f), 49 ALR Fed 911.
The Empirical, Historical and Legal Case Against the Cautionary Instruction: A Call for Legislative Reform, Morris, 1988 Duke L.J. 154, February 1988.
Gambling: Instruction as to limited effect of evidence of other acts of gambling, 64 ALR2d 846.
Intoxicating Liquor: Limitations by instructions on consideration of evidence of other sales admitted in prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, 40 ALR2d 863.
“The Jury Will Disregard. . .” But New Study Suggests That By Then It’s Too Late [ABA Foundation research on whether jurors follow judge’s admonition to disregard certain evidence, includes related article], Marcotte, 73 ABA J. 34, Nov. 1, 1987.
Necessity and sufficiency of cautionary instructions, in prosecution for rape, as to evidence of other similar offense, 77 ALR2d 906.
The Power and Duty of Federal Judges to Marshall and Comment on the Evidence in Jury Trials and Some Suggestions on Charging Juries [expansion of remarks to Eleventh Circuit Judicial workshop in Destin, Florida, October 28, 1987], Weinstein, 118 West’s Fed. Rules Decisions 161, Feb. 1988.
Should Judges Sum Up on the Facts? [Great Britain], Wolchover, Crim. L.Rev. 781, Nov. 1989.
Similar Fact Evidence and Limited Use Instructions: An Empirical Investigation [Canada], Schaefer and Hansen, 14 Crim.L.J. 157, June 1990.
Thou Shalt Not Quote the Bible: Determining the Propriety of Attorney Use of Religious Philosophy and Themes in Oral Arguments (1998-1999), 33 Ga. L.Rev. 1113, 1176.
Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases, 28 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 67 (2001).
17.40 Supplemental Instruction/Deliberation Procedure (see also 17.50 Deliberation Coercion; Instruction Procedure; and When to Instruct) (BIBLIO 17.40)
Additional instruction to jury after submission of felony case, 94 ALR2d 270, 94 ALR2d 307.
Amended or additional instructions, right to additional argument on matters covered by, 15 ALR2d 490.
The Case for Submitting Written Instructions to the Jury [N. Carolina], Herman, 39 N. Carolina Sate B.Q. 14, Fall 1992.
Deception — Dishonesty — Proper Direction to Jury — Questions During Retirement — Duty to Disclose Contents to Counsel [Great Britain], Rees and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 292, April 1992.
Failure to comply with statute, constitutional provision, or court rule providing for giving instructions to jury in writing as prejudicial or reversible error, 115 ALR 1332 and Later Case Service.
Giving, in accused’s absence, additional instruction to jury after submission of felony case. 94 ALR2d 270.
Informed Conviction: Instructing The Jury About Mandatory Sentencing Consequences, K.K. Sauer, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1232-72 June 1995.
Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Gershman, 27 Crim.L. Bull. 291, July-Aug. 1991.
Jury Instructions in the Jury Room?, Wade, 33 For the Defense 28, April 1991.
Presence of alternate juror in jury room as ground for reversal of state criminal conviction, 15 ALR4th 1127.
Postretirement out-of-court communications between jurors and trial judge as grounds for new trial or reversal in criminal case, 43 ALR4th 410.
Procedure to be followed where jury requests information as to possibility of pardon or parole from sentence imposed, 35 ALR2d 769.
Propriety and effect of jurors’ discussion of evidence among themselves before final submission of criminal case, 21 ALR4th 444.
Propriety and prejudicial effect, in criminal case, of placing jury in charge of officer who is a witness in the case, 38 ALR3d 1012.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of sending written instructions with retiring jury in criminal case, 91 ALR3d 382.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of trial court’s inquiry as to numerical division of jury, 77 ALR3d 769.
Propriety of reopening criminal case in order to present omitted or overlooked evidence, after submission to jury but before return of verdict, 87 ALR2d 849.
Propriety, under state statute or court rule, of substituting state trial juror with alternate after case has been submitted to jury, 88 ALR4th 711
Right to have reporter’s notes read to jury, 50 ALR2d 176.
Time jury may be kept together on disagreement in criminal case, 93 ALR2d 627.
17.42 Penalty, Consideration by Jury (BIBLIO 17.42)
Admissibility of expert testimony as to appropriate punishment for convicted defendant, 47 ALR4th 1069.
Assessing Punishment; What Should the Jury Know? (Texas), DeKoatz, Dominguez and Dinsmoor, 55 Tex. Bar J. 355, Apr. 1992.
Defendant May Request Jury Charge Disclosing His Parole Eligibility (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1987), Smith, 40 S. Carolina L.Rev. 60, Autumn 1988.
Judge Does Not Have to Instruct Jury About Parole Eligibility (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 – Dec. 31, 1989), Bondura, 42 S. Carolina L.Rev. 169, Autumn 1990.
Jury’s discussion of parole law as ground for reversal or new trial, 21 ALR4th 420, §§ 3, 4[b].
Prejudicial effect of statement by prosecutor that verdict, recommendation of punishment, or other finding by jury is subject to review or correction by other authorities, 10 ALR5th 700.
Prejudicial effect of statement of court that if jury makes mistake in convicting it can be corrected by other authorities, 5 ALR3d 974.
Prejudicial effect of statement of prosecutor as to possibility of pardon or parole, 16 ALR3d 1137.
Prejudicial effect of statement or instruction of court as to possibility of parole or pardon, 12 ALR3d 832.
Procedure to be followed where jury requests information as to possibility of pardon or parole from sentence imposed, 35 ALR2d 769.
Suspension of sentence: Propriety and effect of court’s indication to jury that court would suspend sentence, 8 ALR2d 1001.
17.50 Deliberation Coercion (see also 17.40, Supplemental Instruction/Deliberation Procedure) (BIBLIO 17.50)
After Lowenfield: The Allen Charge in the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Cir. Survey), Jensen, 19 Golden Gate U.L.Rev. 75, Spring 1989.
How Does the Dynamite Charge Affect Jury Determinations? [case note: U.S. v. Arpan (8th Cir. 1988) 887 F.2d 873], Stanton, 35 S. Dakota L.Rev. 461, Fall 1990.
Instructions urging dissenting jurors in state criminal case to give due consideration to opinion of majority (Allen charge) — Modern cases, 97 ALR3d 96.
Jury numerical division: Propriety and prejudicial effect of trial court’s inquiry, 77 ALR3d 769.
Modern status of rule that court may instruct dissenting jurors to give due consideration to opinion of majority (Allen charge), 44 ALR Fed 468.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of trial court’s inquiry as to numerical division of jury, 77 ALR3d 769.
18.00 Non-CALJIC Offenses (BIBLIO 18.00)
Criminal liability for wrongfully obtaining unemployment benefits, 80 ALR3d 1280.
Criminal liability under state laws in connection with application for, or receipt of, public welfare payments, 22 ALR4th 534.
Validity, construction, and application of state statutes imposing criminal penalties for influencing, intimidating, or tampering with witness, 8 ALR4th 769.
Criminal Liability of Attorney for Tampering With Evidence, Elizabeth Cazden, 49 ALr5th 619.
