About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

47 S.M.U. L. Rev. 995 (1993-1994)
Criminal Procedure: Pretrial, Trial and Appeal

handle is hein.journals/smulr47 and id is 1031 raw text is: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: PRETRIAL, TRIAL AND APPEAL Robert Udashen * Gary A. Udashen** HIS Article reviews the major cases from the United States Supreme Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Texas courts of appeals in these areas of criminal procedure: pretrial (with the excep- tion of confession, search, and seizure), trial and appeal. This Article also reviews the major changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure in these areas as a result of the last legislative session. I. FORMER JEOPARDY In a significant step backward for double jeopardy jurisprudence, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Dixon,' overruled the recent case of Grady v. Corbin.2 Dixon combined the appeals in two cases that arose out of nonsummary criminal contempt proceedings. In both cases a court issued an order forbid- ding a person to engage in criminal conduct. In one case the court incorpo- rated the entire criminal code and in the other the court forbade the commission of assault. Both persons violated the court orders and were later found in contempt. Subsequently, both persons were criminally prosecuted. One person was successful in having his criminal prosecution dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. The other was not successful. The government appealed the dismissal of the first and the contemnor appealed the failure to dismiss the other case. The initial question for the Supreme Court in Dixon was whether the pro- tections of the double jeopardy clause3 apply in nonsummary criminal con- tempt prosecutions just as they do in other criminal prosecutions; the Supreme Court held that they do apply.4 The more difficult question for the court was whether the subsequent criminal prosecutions were barred by the double jeopardy clause. Prior to Grady v. Corbin a subsequent prosecution was barred by the double jeopardy clause unless each offense contained an element not con- *B.A., J.D., The University of Texas, Attorney at Law, Dallas, Texas. SB.A., The University of Texas; J.D., Southern Methodist University, Attorney at Law, Dallas, Texas. 1. 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993). 2. 495 U.S. 508 (1990). 3. U.S. CONST. amend. V. 4. 113 S. Ct. at 2856.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most