Browsing by Author "Davidow, Robert P."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Criminal Procedure Ombudsman as a Substitute for the Exclusionary Rule: A Proposal(Texas Tech Law Review, 1973) Davidow, Robert P.The problem of the exclusionary rule is well known to all those familiar with the administration of criminal justice in the United States today. The problem has at least three aspects. First, the exclusionary rule (that is, the rule which requires exclusion of trustworthy evidence seized in violation of the fourth, fifth; sixth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution) does, in some instances, permit guilty persons to escape punishment because the police have violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Second, police lawlessness has not been deterred by the existence of the exclusionary rule, especially in those instances in which the police have pursued goals other than that of prosecution of criminal defendants. Third, the exclusionary rule has provided no remedy for the innocent person, who, presumably, is never brought to trial and thus never has an opportunity to invoke the exclusionary rule.Item Obscenity Law in England And The United States: A Comparative Analysis(Nebraska Law Review, 1977) Davidow, Robert P.This article compares the current laws of obscenity – both statutory and judge-made law – in England and Wales with the United States Supreme Court’s delineation of constitutionally permissible obscenity laws in the United States. The similarities include a common judicial perception of the problem as one involving the need to distinguish socially valuable materials from corrupting and worthless materials. The differences are most pronounced in the procedural area. After an introduction, the article provides an outline of obscenity law in the United States, followed by an outline of obscenity law in England and Wales. Section two discusses areas of similarities in the countries’ laws, while section three discusses areas of difference in the countries’ laws. In the conclusion, the authors note that the major substantive difference in the treatment of obscenity in the United States and in England and Wales is that in England and Wales, the notion of obscenity is not restricted to sex, but can include violence and drug-taking. The authors posit that this difference highlights the different approaches taken by the courts in the two countries resulting from the existence of a written Bill of Rights in the United States and the absence of a Bill of Rights in England. An appendix, which provides a brief overview of the history of obscenity law, is attached after the conclusion.Item One Justice for All: A Proposal to Establish, by Federal Constitutional Amendment, a National System of Criminal Justice(North Carolina Law Review, 1972) Davidow, Robert P.The time has come to look beyond mere tradition and to ask some pertinent questions, the answers to which logically suggest the desirability of an exclusive, uniform system of federal criminal justice in the United States. With full knowledge of his myriad critics, Professor Davidow describes the justifications for the change, the assumptions he makes in making his suggestions, and the earth-shattering changes needed to make the dream a reality (including a constitutional amendment).Item Texas Peace Bond - Can it Withstand Constitutional Attack(Texas Tech Law Review, 1972) Davidow, Robert P.Chapter 7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth a procedure whereby an individual may be arrested, brought before a magistrate (including a justice of the peace), required to post a peace bond if the magistrate "be satisfied that there is just reason to apprehend that the offense was intended to be committed, or that the threat was seriously made," and committed to jail for a period of one year upon the individual's failure to post the required bond. Though this procedure is neither novel nor unique, there is a serious question whether it is consistent with either the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.