Search

During 2023, the Criminal Code has been object of multiple modifications. That of article 84 has been one of the most relevant, which established a one-year peremptory period of suspension of the criminal action. Although it has generated a special controversy in the political and academic spheres, the Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice agreed on is unquestionable application, as stated in its most recent jurisprudence issued between June and October of this year. However, on November 28th, 2023, the Plenary Agreement N.° 05-2023/CIJ-112 was published, through which the same Tribunals that applied the modified article, raised its unconstitutionality as a legal doctrine. Such an abrupt change in criteria not only promotes legal uncertainty, but also proposes the permanence of an irrational conception of the calculation of the suspension period, which comes incompatible with the reasonable period right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses attention on individual provisions of the implementation of the principle of competition in criminal proceedings. The article considers some debatable issues regarding the possibilities and means of collecting and presenting evidence by a lawyer at a pre-trial investigation. The lawyer’s function of gathering and presenting evidence to the investigator, prosecutor, and investigating judge stems from the principle of competition between the prosecution and the defense, which ensures a balance of interests and a fair decision in court. The content and features of the capabilities and means of the defense in collecting and providing evidence in accordance with the current Criminal Procedure of Ukraine are indicated. The tasks and functions of the prosecution and defense parties are compared. The lawyer’s actions, which are directly aimed at collecting and presenting evidence, and those that have an indirect direction of actions to obtain evidentiary information are distinguished and analyzed. Attention is drawn to the problematic issues that arise during the lawyer’s collection of evidence and their submission to the prosecution, in particular, the lawyer’s right to independently decide on the timing and expediency of providing the prosecution with access to documents and physical evidence that he must use in court. Separate tactical methods of defense of the suspect, the accused during the implementation of the lawyer’s activity at the pre-trial investigation are analyzed. An opinion was expressed about the need for a clearer and more specific wording in the law of actions of the defense side, aimed at gathering and presenting evidence, and guarantees of ensuring their implementation in the practical activities of the lawyer, investigator, prosecutor, court. It is proposed to formalize the course and results of the collection and presentation of evidence - the lawyer’s investigation, as well as the lawyer’s actions to ensure compliance with the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the suspect, the accused in the form of a lawyer’s proceeding, which ends with a conclusion, which is submitted to the court at the same time as the indictment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Anbar University for Law & Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article analyzes the specific procedural moments at which the prosecutor orders the initiation of criminal proceedings, taking into account the practice of criminal prosecution, and taking into account the definition of the legal action as an indispensable condition for the court to exercise its jurisdiction. The timing of the initiation of criminal proceedings can be understood by recognizing the procedural necessity of the indictment, a requirement which completes the set of conditions laid down in the law of criminal procedure for the initiation of criminal proceedings. It should also be noted that the effects of initiating criminal proceedings in certain circumstances go beyond the criminal proceedings, as the indictment is the basis for other provisions, with important temporary consequences in certain professions, such as temporary relocation, suspension of the decision on the application for a service pension or payment of a service pension, suspension from office. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of a defendant submitting a false guilty plea due to the penal incentive offered is not an uncommon phenomenon. While the practice has been legitimised based on the defendant's voluntary informed consent, it has often been argued that the structure of the plea-bargaining practice is coercive. Such can be the case whenever the plea offer entails a significant sentence differential, discrepancy in the form of punishment (a non-custodial sentence relative to a custodial one), or when the alternative of pleading guilty includes the risk of capital punishment. Having said that, plea-bargains have often been classified as a "non-coercive offer", whether due to their advantageous mutual character according to a baseline conception of coercion or being an offer that one can overcome according to an irresistible psychological account. While many scholars have struggled with the ambiguous notion of "coercive offers," the paper offers an alternative approach, arguing that it is the type of reasons to be considered within the offer that renders the bargain less than fully autonomous. It will be argued that the plea-bargain proposition infuses irrelevant (guilt-uncorrelated) penal considerations unrelated to the question of guilt. Such considerations are the wrong kind of reason for the guilty-plea decision, and due to the defendant's dependency on the plea offer, they distort the defendant's intentional character of her autonomous decision. It is part of the conception of the guilty plea. Though a defendant may autonomously intend to consider irrelevant penal considerations, such a decision cannot be genuinely considered a decision regarding the admission of guilt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article presents a theory whereby criminal punishments are routinely distributed in proportion to the weight of the evidence mounted against the defendant. According to this theory, the law relaxes the stringent decision threshold in criminal trials—beyond a reasonable doubt—by creating easy-to-prove evidentiary offenses. These offenses, in turn, are associated with less severe sanctions, thus creating a de-facto proportional liability regime. Against that backdrop, the Article examines the legal duty to report criminal activity to the authorities. As the analysis shows, while legal scholars analyzing such duties have focused on the paradigmatic case in which an innocent bystander, friend or family member is unwittingly exposed to information about a crime, in practice these duties are rarely used in such cases. Rather, reporting duties are used to prosecute suspected accomplices whose involvement in the commission of the actual crime is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, offenses imposing a reporting duty on criminal activity turn out to be part of the general framework of accomplice liability, and are used to apply less severe sanctions in cases of evidentiary uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I address the theory of excuse, or more precisely, exculpatory excuse, and the question of what it is that justifies the category of excuse. I address different potential grounds for the law of excuse, which are often run together in ways that confound rather than clarify, focusing on the role of blamelessness and unfairness of expectations in the theory of excuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terrorism research has gained much traction since the 9/11 attacks, but some sub genres of terrorism, such as right-wing terrorism, have remained under-studied areas. Unsurprisingly data sources to study these phenomena are scarce and frequently face unique data collection obstacles. This paper explores five major, social-scientific terrorism databases in regards to data on right-wing terrorist events. The paper also provides an in-depth examination of the utilization of criminal legal proceedings to research right-wing terrorist acts. Lastly, legal case databases are introduced and discussed to show the lack of available court information and case proceedings in regards to right-wing terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court announced what is now a seminal rule of constitutional criminal procedure: any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum cannot be found by a judge, but must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The doctrine arising from Apprendi and its descendant cases had, until recently, been confined to the sentencing context. But in 2019, the Court in United States v. Haymond considered a potential expansion of Apprendi to judicial revocations of federal supervised release. The Court ultimately handed down a 4-1-4 decision with minimal precedential value, but since then, there has been a swell of scholarship discussing the applicability of the jury right to this new context. Much of this discussion has centered around the questions of constitutional interpretation raised by Haymond, and whether a revocation proceeding is part of a "criminal prosecution" as specified by the text of the Sixth Amendment. This Note argues for a different approach. Revisiting the Apprendi cases and their contemporary scholarly treatment reveals that the doctrine was rooted not in novel methods of textual interpretation, but in fundamental principles of substantive criminal law: what constitutes "crime" and "punishment." Existing scholarship has not provided an answer to how these principles might apply to a function that takes place after sentencing and final judgment, like revocation of supervised release. I therefore introduce a retroactive theory of revocation that rationalizes Apprendi's definition of crime and punishment within this context. Under this theory, revocation proceedings are unconstitutional not because they are directly covered by the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, but because they circumvent a person's original jury trial by allowing them to be "punished" for a different "crime." This means that every revocation of supervised release violates Apprendi. Moreover, the retroactive theory suggests that other forms of post-judgment penalties, like extensions of probation and criminal fees, can similarly run afoul of the Sixth Amendment's protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One common theoretical perspective posits that courts should assume a counter-majoritarian role in criminal law because the political process systematically disfavors the interests of criminal suspects and defendants. Recent shifts in the politics of crime complicate this perspective's assumptions, raising the paradoxical possibility that welcome improvements in the politics of crime will weaken the theoretical case for counter-majoritarian judicial decisions. This Article tentatively considers whether, if at all, courts' interpretive approach should change in response to any continuing moderation of historic "tough on crime" politics. It suggests that while arguments for narrow construction of criminal statutes will remain strong for the foreseeable future, a more moderate and competitive politics of crime could justify greater judicial deference, at least at the margins and in some limited circumstances, to democratic choices regarding criminal procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: To improve the currently low conviction rate in cases of child abuse a forensic examination center for children and adolescents (FOKUS) was established in Vienna, Austria. Besides a state of the art treatment combined with forensic documentation, one of FOKUS' key goals is to identify potential areas for improvements within the process legal proceedings in cases of child abuse through constant scientific monitoring. The accompanying study at hand includes all patients referred to FOKUS within a two year timeframe (n = 233), monitoring their progression from first contact with the medical professionals from FOKUS to the end of criminal proceedings. A detailed analysis of case files was performed in those cases that were reported to the legal authorities by the clinicians of FOKUS (n = 87). Aim of the study is to investigate which factors contribute to the initiation of legal proceedings and a successful conviction. Results: Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that main proceedings were opened more often in cases where the offender was an adult (p < 0.001) or admitted his guilt (p < 0.001) and if digital traces were available (p = 0.001) or trial support (p = 0.024) present. Furthermore, the combined occurrence of medical documentation and victim disclosure was related to a higher probability of opening main trials. Conclusion: These findings underline how challenging the successful persecution of an offender in cases of child abuse is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Split / Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu is the property of Split Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Crónica Tributaria is the property of Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Ministerio de Hacienda y Funcion Publica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta held that provincial and territorial law societies have disciplinary jurisdiction over Crown prosecutors for conduct outside of prosecutorial discretion. The reasoning in Krieger would also apply to government lawyers. The apparent consensus is that law societies rarely exercise that jurisdiction. But in those rare instances, what conduct do Canadian law societies discipline Crown prosecutors and government lawyers for? In this article, I canvass reported disciplinary decisions to demonstrate that, while law societies sometimes discipline Crown prosecutors for violations unique to those lawyers, they often do so for violations applicable to all lawyers -- particularly extraprofessional misconduct. Further research remains necessary on the patterns and incentives underlying law society discipline of Crown prosecutors and government lawyers. Nonetheless, the relative rarity of disciplinary proceedings involving Crown prosecutors and government lawyers does not necessarily mean that law societies are neglecting their statutory mandate as it applies to those lawyers. At the same time, law societies may indeed be overly reliant not only on internal discipline of these lawyers by governments as their employers, but also on criminal proceedings as prompts for investigation and discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses hallmarks of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's criminal procedure jurisprudence. Topics discussed include explanation on Justice Alito's understanding of criminal procedure rules and pragmatics, insight on Justice Alito's plurality opinion in the case, Salinas v. Texas, and how his focus on real-world consequences affects his approach to reconsidering precedents and setting new ones.

Few studies have assessed defense performance in criminal cases in the Latin American context. The current research investigated whether defense type affects the odds of conviction and incarceration length for drug trafficking cases in the Brazilian city of Belo Horizonte. We used a Binary Logistic and a Linear regression model, controlling the results for defendants and case characteristics. From that, we found no difference in the performance of public defenders compared to private and assigned lawyers. Criminal history, firearms seized, and being the only defendant in the process increased incarceration length. Precision scale or plastic bags seizure increased the odds of conviction. Moreover, non-whites and less educated defendants had higher odds of conviction than their counterparts. We attributed these findings to the functioning of the criminal justice system as an assembly line, in which cases are mass treated. In the absence of reflection on the individualities of the processes, court actors end up making decisions based on stereotypes. In the absence of clear criteria in the Drug Law/2006 on who is a user and a dealer, certain social types – perceived as "bandidos" (Misse, Lua Nova 79:15–38, 2010), would be more likely to be labeled as dealers. In this context, the defense can do little to change the process course and its outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios de Derecho is the property of Estudios de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as international treaties ratified by Chile, oblige the state to offer free legal assistance to those who require it, which is especially relevant in the criminal sphere. On the riots or social unrest that occurred in Chile in the last quarter of 2019 and early 2020, the Public Criminal Defense Office adopted a set of measures to offer legal defense to those who were detained or indicted by the criminal prosecution bodies. This research compares crime behavior in the country between 2017 and 2021 and identifies the social unrest crimes. These are a group of crimes whose frequency increased considerably during the turbulent months: 1) burglary, 2) public disorder, 3) disturbances to public order, and 4) attacks and threats against authorities. The volume and specificities of the social unrest crimes challenged the entire justice sector and, in doing so, made it possible to generate beliefs about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. In contexts of social unrest, the generation of such beliefs seems especially important, because they can increase perceptions of injustice, enhancing the motivations that give rise to such unrest. Therefore, the operational reactions deployed in the Public Criminal Defense Office to ensure timely criminal defense services are explained. Good practices of the Public Criminal Defense Office that could be strengthened institutionally and normatively so that the justice sector is better prepared to face complex or unusual criminological phenomena, such as those that occurred during the social outburst, are also highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines in three parts how ADR is being embedded into the English civil justice system. Section 1 discusses how courts encourage settlements, and it argues that while mounting costs in litigation lead to negotiated settlements, the participation in ADR primarily mainly occurs when parties are referred to it in a timely manner. Section 2 investigates the time when disputants are referred to ADR, and it proposes a taxonomy formed by three stages in the dispute life cycle: (1) before parties contemplate litigation; (2) at the pre-action phase as a pre-condition to issue a claim; and (3) after a defence is entered. Section 3 notes that the court digitalisation program is increasing ADR referrals across the above three stages, and it argues that these referrals will be more effective when they are timely and coupled with suitable incentives and sanctions, but the latter must take into consideration the parties' power asymmetries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Angle Health Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Lithuania's liberation from the Soviet Union did require certain sacrifices, and one of the biggest of them occurred on the so-called Bloody Sunday—January 13, 1991. Historically, January events in Lithuania might be paralleled to earlier massacres intended to stymie Soviet-era liberation movements: Black Saturday in Baku (1990) and The April 9 tragedy in Tbilisi (1989). This topic covers a wide range of legal and criminological themes, including selective justice; the issue of the liability of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (i.e., Mikhail Gorbachev); and limitations of criminal law while incriminating the acts falling under Arendt's term known as the "banality of evil." Naturally, similar events have a Rashomon-like character, with both facts and interpretations varying wildly depending on the source. In light of this, the article discusses several dichotomous (i.e., opposingly perceived) concepts: the relationship between spontaneous and planned, liberation and status frustration, and crowd and mobs. The aim of the article is to analyze the criminal case and the events of January 13, 1991, to apply criminological theories to this specific case, and last but not the least, to determine whether this legal case can be described as a quest for justice or a quest for criminals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although balancing tests are common in criminal procedure, the United States Supreme Court has grown skeptical of them. In fact, in Ramos v. Louisiana, decided in the 2020 term, the Court replaced one of the last remaining balancing tests for the core of a criminal procedure right. This replacement follows on the heels of other similar replacements in recent decades. Legitimacy concerns drive the Court's slow elimination of balancing tests. The Court appears concerned that many of these balancing tests are unjustified and unexplained and therefore raise the specter of injustice and abuse. The only balancing tests remaining-for such rights as the speedy trial right-rest on substantial, explicit justifications. Indeed, these few remaining balancing tests for the core of criminal procedure rights are explained at length by the Court. The right-to-counsel-of-choice balancing test is not explained, however. It therefore raises many of the concerns for legitimacy expressed by the Court. To remedy these concerns, this article seeks to fortify the justifications for the balancing test, lest it suffer the same fate as the one in Ramos. But this article finds these justifications to be incomplete: they are only persuasive in conflict-of interest cases. In all others, the justifications collapse. This article therefore rethinks the balancing test and proposes an alternate way to apply the right to counsel of choice. This article proposes adopting an originalist approach to the right to counsel of choice and seeks to explain how an originalist approach would supplant the current test. This article concludes that an originalist approach would be a workable and effective way to apply the right to counsel of choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There may be multiple litigants in the civil lawsuit, whether their number is original (at the start of the lawsuit) or emergency (after proceeding with it) there is no doubt that this multiplicity has an impact on the rules of procedural annulment of the lawsuit in the voluntary and penal quality, the Iraqi legislator did not address the impact of multiple litigants on these rules, despite the complex procedural problems they raise, but rather left them to the general rules relating to the case of the individuality of the defendant and the defendant, an application for annulment of the petition may be filed by one of the multiple plaintiffs against one of the defendants, the final decision in approving this request depends on the subject of litigation and the extent of its divisibility or not, if its subject matter is divisible, the annulment application may be filed by one of the plaintiffs only and against some of the defendants and not by the others, while such an application is not accepted when the subject matter of the litigation is indivisible, whereas, such an application must be made by all plaintiffs and against all defendants in response to the unity of resolution required by the indivisible matter, as for the criminal annulment of the lawsuit when there are multiple litigants, it also did not receive the attention of the Iraqi legislator, while the Egyptian and French legislators dealt with this issue in the case of multiple plaintiffs only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Chinese courts issued a spate of anti-suit injunctions ("ASIs") in licensing disputes between holders of standard-essential patents ("SEPs") and implementers, there have been growing concerns about the weaponization of ASIs in the global SEP licensing battles on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms. This Essay will discuss how the aggressive use of ASIs by Chinese courts, along with their assertion of jurisdiction to set global licensing rates at abnormally low levels, contributes to this concern. It is not helpful, however, to cast the ASIs in purely geopolitical terms. More than anything else, ASIs are being used to gain an advantage in licensing negotiations, and they may perversely play a positive role in facilitating the settlement of FRAND disputes. Instead of trying to curb the use of ASIs per se, more attention needs to be paid to solving the forum shopping problem in global FRAND litigation that leads to the issuance of ASIs in the first place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista CIENCIA UNEMI is the property of Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary court proceedings regarding criminal misdemeanors are a differentiated type of court proceedings in the court of first instance. Three forms of simplification of court proceedings regarding criminal misdemeanors are singled out, in particular: 1) with accelerated holding a trial in a court session; 2) without holding a trial in a court session; 3) with holding a trial without examining the evidence regarding those circumstances that are not contested by anyone. The list of documents, the presence of which is a prerequisite for the consideration of the indictment by the court in the order of summary court proceedings, has been determined. The author states that a summary court proceeding without a trial in a court session limits the right to a fair trial, provided for by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It has been established, that the features of summary court proceedings regarding criminal offenses are: 1) procedural speed; 2) simplification of the procedural form; 3) greater efficiency compared to the "usual" form of court proceedings; 4) changed structure of the proof process; 5) modification (restriction) of certain principles of criminal proceedings. The definition of summary court proceedings for criminal misdemeanors is proposed. The grounds for conducting court proceedings in a simplified manner have been determined, in particular: 1) legal material ground (qualification of the accused's act as a criminal misdemeanor); 2) procedural grounds: a) the presence of the accused's consent to this procedure for consideration of the indictment; b) undisputed recognition by the accused of his/her guilt in committing the incriminated misdemeanor; c) recognition (non-dispute) by the accused of the circumstances of the proceedings, established during the investigation; d) the presence of the prosecutor's initiative (petition) to consider the indictment in a simplified manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article outlines the federal executions and the broader context surrounding them and stay orders issued by the Supreme Court, and compare their disposition as its membership has changed. It mentions Court presumably favor the new standard because they believe that last-minute capital litigation is largely a frivolous ploy by capital defendants to manufacture delay. It also mentions arbitrary and racially discriminatory way in which post-sentencing legal proceedings.

Transnational organized crime and the fight against it is a significant challenge for our country. Palermo Convention The same United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 15 November 2000 with the aim of promoting cooperation in the fight against transnational organized crime. The article examines in depth Article 5 of the Palermo Convention, which calls on member states to directly criminalize participation in organized crime groups. In accordance with this requirement, a number of important changes have been made in the Georgian legislative space. These include the Criminal Code of Georgia, the Law of Georgia on Organized Crime and Racketeering, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia and other legal acts. The article discusses and evaluates the results of the work of each of the above legal documents, both on a theoretical and practical level. The National Strategy for Combating Organized Crime of Georgia has been evaluated and discussed. Judicial practice has also been studied, which ultimately allows for important conclusions to be drawn. At the end of the paper we will talk about the challenges of Georgia in terms of combating organized crime, the main directions, problems and shortcomings in the fight against organized crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Belügyi Szemle / Academic Journal of Internal Affairs is the property of Ministry of Interior of Hungary and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses appellate cases of interest that were decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In State v. Robinson, Robinson filed a motion to correct sentence under the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. In State v. Valdez, Valdez refused to provide his cell phone's passcode to detectives looking for text messages with an alleged victim. In State v. Taylor, the district court modified the defendant's pretrial release conditions.

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Kufa Legal & Political Science is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article considers the right against self-incrimination law and the dispute over the meaning of criminal case. Topics discussed include the background on the Self-Incrimination Clause under the Fifth Amendment, failure of the Supreme Court to clarify the application of the right against self-incrimination in the case Chavez v. Martinez, and the necessity for the Court to emphasize the role of compelled statements in the violation of the right.

Copyright of Estudios de Derecho is the property of Estudios de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)