FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1181   1182   1183   1184   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   1201   1202   1203   1204   1205  
1206   1207   1208   1209   1210   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   >>   >|  
"the evidence held to be inculpatory * * * [must have had] at least a sinister significance * * *, or if this at times be lacking, there must be in any event a manifest disparity in convenience of proof and opportunity for knowledge, * * *" Whereas, accordingly, under the terms of the section previously upheld, the defendant could prove his citizenship without trouble, and the State, if forced to disprove his claim, could be relatively helpless, the background of the accused party being known probably only to himself and close relatives, the alleged Japanese defendant, in the last mentioned case, would have suffered hardship and injustice if compelled to prove non-Japanese origin, especially since ineligibility renders criminal conduct otherwise lacking in "sinister significance" (occupation of land under lease from an American codefendant).[798] On the other hand, it was held in a recent case, that Oregon was entitled to require that one pleading insanity as a defense against a criminal charge should prove same beyond a reasonable doubt, and to make "morbid propensity" no defense.[799] Jury Trials: Dispensing With Jury Trials Trial by jury has not been considered essential to due process, and since the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees no particular form or method of procedure, States have been free to retain or abolish juries.[800] Conformably to the Constitution, States, in devising their own procedures, eliminated juries in proceedings to enforce liens,[801] inquiries for contempt,[802] mandamus[803] and quo warranto actions,[804] and in eminent domain[805] and equity proceedings.[806] States are equally free to adopt innovations respecting the selection and number of jurors. Verdicts rendered by ten out of twelve jurors may be substituted for the requirement of a unanimous verdict,[807] and petit juries containing eight rather than the conventional twelve members may be established.[808] DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS General In the following pages the requirements of the due process clause of Amendment XIV in criminal cases will be dealt with in approximately the order in which questions regarding them arise in the course of a prosecution. Indefinite Statutes: Right of Accused to Knowledge of Offense "A statute so vague and indefinite, in form and as interpreted, * * * [as to fail] to give fair notice of what acts will be punished, * * *, violates an accused's rights under procedural due
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1181   1182   1183   1184   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   1201   1202   1203   1204   1205  
1206   1207   1208   1209   1210   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

States

 

criminal

 
juries
 

Trials

 

defendant

 

significance

 

defense

 
Japanese
 

jurors

 

accused


proceedings

 

lacking

 

sinister

 

Amendment

 
process
 

twelve

 

unanimous

 

verdict

 

innovations

 

respecting


number

 

substituted

 
Verdicts
 
devising
 
rendered
 

requirement

 
selection
 

actions

 
inquiries
 
contempt

procedures
 

eliminated

 
enforce
 
mandamus
 

equity

 

equally

 
domain
 
warranto
 

eminent

 
Knowledge

Accused

 

Offense

 

statute

 

Statutes

 

prosecution

 

Indefinite

 
indefinite
 

violates

 
punished
 

rights