Rhode Island Report on the Judiciary 1980-1982

This ninth report on the judiciary has been produced by the Administrative Office of State Courts. During the period covered in the report the courts have made progress in several areas. Among these, major improvements to court facilities, the achievement of speedy trial goals, and the work of several study committees stand out as examples of what has been achieved

A Prescription for Crime Prevention: Improving Youth Access to Effective Mental Health Approaches

Examines youth mental health issues in California, focusing on at-risk youth and those already involved in the juvenile justice system. Offers eleven youth mental health programs and provides policy recommendations

On the Right Track to Safer Communities: Steering California's Juvenile Offenders Away from Lives of Crime

Describes family therapies and community-based intervention programs to reduce repeat offenses by juvenile offenders. Includes recommendations for expanding existing programs and an analysis of potential cost savings

Rhode Island Report on the Judiciary 1991

As required by § 8-15-7 of the Rhode Island General Laws, the 1991 Annual Report on the Judiciary is herewith transmitted. This report reflects a year of hard work, dedication and commitment by the judges and staff of the Courts. Special appreciation is expressed to the administrative staff who participated in its production

Two Jinn, Inc. v. District Court Clerk\u27s Record v. 2 Dckt. 36476

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/3555/thumbnail.jp

Status of Student Practice Rules \u3cem\u3ePeople v. Perez\u3c/em\u3e—An Initial Look at the Sixth Amendment

Despite the advent of the limited practice of law by law students as early as 1957, a California Court of Appeals in 1978 became the first court to examine the sixth amendment status of student representation in state criminal prosecutions. In People v. Perez, a California appellate court concluded that a lawyer-supervised law student, certified for limited practice by the California Student Practice Rules, is per se ineffective counsel in felony trials. Ostensibly to protect the defendant\u27s right to effective counsel, Perez struck down the student practice rules without considering the proper function of certification in sixth amendment analysis. Moreover, the court misapplied sixth amendment principles in concluding that the Constitution does not allow student representation in felony trials, irrespective of the presence of a supervising attorney at trial