Add to ORKGFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 governs how a defendant must be counseled when pleading guilty or nolo contendre. Federal Courts of Appeals have held that violation of Rule 11 is harmless error. Since it is harmless error, the lower courts’ decisions are upheld. This article argues that the Federal Courts of Appeals have misapplied the harmless error standard when deciding Rule 11 issues
In a unanimous en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Townsend v. Holman Consulting ...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...
This Note will outline the contours of Rule 44.2(b) by examining: (1) the reasons and motivations be...
Prior to the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, there was some concern as to whether or not the Federal Rul...
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs perhaps the most essential and common pra...
Effective July 1, 1966, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure placed a burden on federa...
Since 1967, federal courts have conducted harmless error analysis to determine whether to uphold a p...
In 2017 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued two little-noticed decisions—Lee v. United States and Cla...
This paper presents an economic model of the harmful error rule in criminal appeals. We test the imp...
This article examines the increasing role of the Chapman Rule and its effect on the harmless error d...
This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedin...
Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-cal...
Although there has been substantial academic focus on the subject of plea bargaining, the guilty-ple...
Appellate harmless error review, an early twentieth-century innovation prompted by concerns of effic...
All federal courts (and most state courts) agree that when a criminal defendant pleads nolo contende...
In a unanimous en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Townsend v. Holman Consulting ...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...
This Note will outline the contours of Rule 44.2(b) by examining: (1) the reasons and motivations be...
Prior to the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, there was some concern as to whether or not the Federal Rul...
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs perhaps the most essential and common pra...
Effective July 1, 1966, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure placed a burden on federa...
Since 1967, federal courts have conducted harmless error analysis to determine whether to uphold a p...
In 2017 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued two little-noticed decisions—Lee v. United States and Cla...
This paper presents an economic model of the harmful error rule in criminal appeals. We test the imp...
This article examines the increasing role of the Chapman Rule and its effect on the harmless error d...
This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedin...
Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-cal...
Although there has been substantial academic focus on the subject of plea bargaining, the guilty-ple...
Appellate harmless error review, an early twentieth-century innovation prompted by concerns of effic...
All federal courts (and most state courts) agree that when a criminal defendant pleads nolo contende...
In a unanimous en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Townsend v. Holman Consulting ...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...
This Note will outline the contours of Rule 44.2(b) by examining: (1) the reasons and motivations be...