Add to ORKGGarrett\u27s disturbing outcome is the most egregious in a series of decisions promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals during the past decade. The result is the product of a sufficiency of evidence analysis in which appellate courts compare the evidence presented to the jury charge alone. Such a sufficiency review exceeds the constitutional safeguards announced by the United States Supreme Court. While a state may provide greater rights than those protected by the federal constitution, doing so in this situation represents poor policy and ill-conceived law. This article will explore various methods for analyzing sufficiency of evidence and trace the evolution of Texas cases culminating in Garrett. Finally, the authors will sugges...
In Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court held that the Texas death penalty statute was a...
The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions t...
(Excerpt) This Note argues that due process requires a new trial when scientific evidence necessary ...
Garrett\u27s disturbing outcome is the most egregious in a series of decisions promulgated by the Te...
In affirming convictions pursuant to a Texas statute implementing common law recidivist procedure, t...
n April of 1980, police found the body of Richard Whitehead outside a small town in eastern Texas. W...
In Clewis v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally addressed the conflict regarding pro...
The government’s duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense under Brady v. Maryland has beco...
At trial, defendants are afforded a panoply of rights right to counsel, to proof beyond a reasonable...
The analysis that follows focuses on two points. First, many reviewing courts in Ohio have failed to...
The purposes of this paper are to evaluate the standard and scope of appellate evidentiary review of...
Critics of jury sentencing in noncapital cases complain that jurors are less competent or qualified ...
Professor Garrett’s impressive empirical analysis of the first 200 post conviction DNA exonerations ...
Over the years, the courts have developed numerous devices for controlling the jury in the exercise ...
Indeed, it is difficult to prove one\u27s innocence, and the legal system purports not to require de...
In Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court held that the Texas death penalty statute was a...
The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions t...
(Excerpt) This Note argues that due process requires a new trial when scientific evidence necessary ...
Garrett\u27s disturbing outcome is the most egregious in a series of decisions promulgated by the Te...
In affirming convictions pursuant to a Texas statute implementing common law recidivist procedure, t...
n April of 1980, police found the body of Richard Whitehead outside a small town in eastern Texas. W...
In Clewis v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally addressed the conflict regarding pro...
The government’s duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense under Brady v. Maryland has beco...
At trial, defendants are afforded a panoply of rights right to counsel, to proof beyond a reasonable...
The analysis that follows focuses on two points. First, many reviewing courts in Ohio have failed to...
The purposes of this paper are to evaluate the standard and scope of appellate evidentiary review of...
Critics of jury sentencing in noncapital cases complain that jurors are less competent or qualified ...
Professor Garrett’s impressive empirical analysis of the first 200 post conviction DNA exonerations ...
Over the years, the courts have developed numerous devices for controlling the jury in the exercise ...
Indeed, it is difficult to prove one\u27s innocence, and the legal system purports not to require de...
In Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court held that the Texas death penalty statute was a...
The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions t...
(Excerpt) This Note argues that due process requires a new trial when scientific evidence necessary ...