Search

The article discusses how courts can ensure that the testimony of children can be done in a way that promotes an efficient determination of truth. Topics include the need for lawyers to use different language, phrasing and sentence structure when questioning children, and the possible solutions found in the Utah Rules of Evidence like the use by judges of reasonable control and age-appropriate questioning of children in court.

The article discusses issues on how the U.S. Supreme Court should resolve the disputes over the involuntarily medication of incompetent defendants to allow them to stand trial.

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.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court has not placed direct limitations on sua sponte decision-making by appellate courts, and provided some guidance. It mentions decision-making by appellate courts because many of its noteworthy opinions were reached in such a manner and Mapp v. Ohio, the Court overruled a prior case and applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to States. It also mentions Stanley v. Illinois that due process requires hearings and terminate the parental rights.

The article discusses the duty of U.S. prosecutors to seek and do justice during trials. Also cited are the need for prosecutors to avoid common errors to prevent injustice, the basic trial errors by prosecutors during jury selection to avoid discriminatory choice and prejudicial statements, opening statements, and closing arguments, as well as other topics like the peremptory challenge and voir dire.

The article examines the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case United States v. Leon which held that although the exclusionary rule and evidence be admissible because the police operated in good-faith reliance on the magistrate's issuance of the search warrant. It mentions discussion of the general principles regarding the Fourth Amendment and search warrants. It also mentions circumstances of the prior improper search to the magistrate.

The article discusses the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the issues on the use of crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and how policy can be utilized to resolve the contrasting opinions of federal circuit courts on the issues. Topics include the ruling by the court in the case U.S. v. Zolin, the system of rules based on locations, and the common law privilege of confidential communications between attorneys and their clients.

The article explores the practice of preliminary hearings in Utah in line with the decision of the Utah Supreme Court to reverse itself in the case involving the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony at trial in the criminal case brought against Desean Goins for assault. Topics covered include purpose of the preliminary hearing, and how the Supreme Court decision affect the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony when the witness becomes unavailable for trial.

The article examines the Utah Rules of Evidence that addresses the interplay between intrinsic evidence and Rule 404(b). It argues that that in automatically turning to Rule 404(b), prosecutors miss another avenue for seeking the introduction of evidence. It states that prosecutors should first consider arguing that the evidence is admissible because it is intrinsic to the crime charged, rather than simply turning to Rule 404(b).

The article discusses the jurisdiction of district courts in some offenses committed by juvenile delinquents in Utah. Topics discussed include the general rule for the jurisdiction of juvenile courts under state law, ways for prosecutors to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile to district court, and the state's failure to set a minimum age for delinquency.

The article focuses on several aspects of selecting alternative jurors in Utah. It mentions need for courts to summon number of jurors that are to try the cause plus such an additional number as will allow for any alternates, for all peremptory challenges permitted, and for all challenges for cause that may be granted. It also mentions that designation of jurors as alternates at the beginning of criminal trials can cause frustration and reduce the alternates' interest in the trial proceedings.

The article ponders on whether a minimum age limit should be set for juvenile delinquency in Utah. Topics discussed include the juvenile court's jurisdiction under Utah law, the capacity of children for criminal intent under the state's common law, and the minimum ages for juvenile delinquency established in other states. The author also looks into the implications of not setting a minimum age limit for delinquency.

The article discusses how homicide offense in Utah requires proof that the defendant caused the death of another. Topics discussed include alleged actions caused the death of the victim, such as cases involving gunshot wounds or stabbing; ways in which Utah does not have to prove that the defendant was the sole cause of the victim's death to convict him or her of a homicide offense; and decision of a Utah court in the case "State v. Hamblin."

The article focuses on the laws governing issue of joinder and severance of co-defendants in criminal cases in Utah. Topics discussed include involvement of criminal defense attorneys in criminal activity; Utah Supreme Court case State v. Velarde on the same; and role of courts and judicial administration in deciding the same.

The article examines the issue of involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication incompetent criminal defendants in Utah. Topics discussed include efforts of the U.S. Supreme Court in administrating the same for rendering the criminal defendant competent to stand trial; Sell v. United States court case on the same; and Washington v. Harper court case on the same.