skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 40881 Find in a Library
Title: MULLANEY V WILBUR, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW - AN EXAMINATION OF THE LIMITS OF LEGITIMATE INTERVENTION
Journal: TEXAS LAW REVIEW  Volume:55  Issue:2  Dated:(JANUARY 1977)  Pages:269-301
Author(s): R J ALLEN
Corporate Author: University of Texas
School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 33
Sponsoring Agency: University of Texas
Austin, TX 78705
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION TO MULLANEY V WILBUR (1975), PARTICULARLY THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON THE PREVIOUS IN RE WINSHIP (1970) RULING, TO DEMONSTRATE FLAWS IN THE WINSHIP DOCTRINE.
Abstract: IN WINSHIP, THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY FACT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIME. THE WILBUR COURT RULED THAT THE MAINE HOMICIDE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT PROVE PROVOCATION VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND CITED THE RULING IN WINSHIP. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE INTERESTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF THE BEYOND A REASONABLE STANDARD IN WINSHIP DO NOT COMPEL THE SAME RESULT IN WILBUR. THE MAJOR PROBLEM IDENTIFIED IN HIS ANALYSIS IS THE CREATION IN WINSHIP OF A FEDERAL POWER TO SUPERVISE THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE STATES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CONSTRAINTS OF FEDERALISM ALLOW A STATE TO STRUCTURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY PARTICULAR MITIGATING FACT IN ANY MANNER IT DESIRES SO LONG AS THE PUNISHMENT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THAT FACT.(AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...EB
Index Term(s): Burden of proof; Defense; Federal courts; Judicial decisions; Judicial review; Right to Due Process; Rights of the accused; State laws; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=40881

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.