FN20: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: BloomBecker, Computer Crime Laws § 3:4.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
BloomBecker, Computer Crime Laws § 3:4. | BloomBecker, Computer Crime Laws § 3:4. | ||
Ohio Rev C §§ 1333.51(3), 1333.99. | |||
As to presentation of the defense case at a preliminary hearing, see Pretrial Procedures and Motions in Criminal Cases, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 27. Privilege against self incrimination, 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law §§ 349–368. | |||
Ponsoldt, When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant, 69 Cornell LR 76 (1983); Vestal & Gilbert, Preclusion of Duplicative Prosecutions: A Developing Mosaic, 47 Mo LR 1 (1982); Westen & Drubel, Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1978 Sup Ct Rev 81, 114–118. | |||
Prejudicial effect of statement of prosecutor as to possibility of pardon or parole, 16 A.L.R. 3d 1137. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:18, 1 March 2009
BloomBecker, Computer Crime Laws § 3:4.
Ohio Rev C §§ 1333.51(3), 1333.99.
As to presentation of the defense case at a preliminary hearing, see Pretrial Procedures and Motions in Criminal Cases, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 27. Privilege against self incrimination, 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law §§ 349–368.
Ponsoldt, When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant, 69 Cornell LR 76 (1983); Vestal & Gilbert, Preclusion of Duplicative Prosecutions: A Developing Mosaic, 47 Mo LR 1 (1982); Westen & Drubel, Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1978 Sup Ct Rev 81, 114–118.
Prejudicial effect of statement of prosecutor as to possibility of pardon or parole, 16 A.L.R. 3d 1137.