May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Volume 43
Since the 1930s, federal courts have expressed great reluctance toward allowing cameras into courtrooms for the purpose of recording or broadcasting proceedings. Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ban the use of cameras in criminal proceedings, there is...
May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Nevertheless, indigent defendants may relinquish...
May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43
Congress strictly regulates telephone surveillance—or “wiretapping”—through the comprehensive Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III). One of Title III’s primary enforcement mechanisms is § 2515, an exclusionary rule that calls...
May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, protecting the secrecy of federal grand jury proceedings, permit limited disclosure of grand jury materials. Courts have differed on the standard of need grand jury witnesses must show to access prior testimony transcripts....
May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43
Although Congress may, as a general matter, extensively regulate interstate commerce, the federal government’s authority to legislate in areas of traditional state concern is limited. Courts, spurred by a renewed interest in federalism, have begun scrutinizing...
May 27, 2010 | Notes, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43
On March 29th, 2008, the residents of Montville, Maine voted to ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the town’s borders. They did so because, among other things, the town’s residents were concerned about the potential for genetic...