Optical alignment and polarization conversion of neutral exciton spin in individual InAs/GaAs quantum dots

We investigate exciton spin memory in individual InAs/GaAs self-assembled quantum dots via optical alignment and conversion of exciton polarization in a magnetic field. Quasiresonant phonon-assisted excitation is successfully employed to define the initial spin polarization of neutral excitons. The conservation of the linear polarization generated along the bright exciton eigenaxes of up to 90% and the conversion from circular- to linear polarization of up to 47% both demonstrate a very long spin relaxation time with respect to the radiative lifetime. Results are quantitatively compared with a model of pseudo-spin 1/2 including heavy-to-light hole mixing.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figure

An Introduction to Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure

For many prisoners, federal habeas corpus stands as the last opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions or sentences. Simply navigating through the procedural maze of habeas practice, however, is a formidable task for inmates proceeding pro se and prisoners represented by counsel. Tragically, those who have had a fundamentally unfair trial, and even those who are innocent, may easily stumble. Since 1867, habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, has been available to state prisoners in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. The modern era of federal habeas corpus, however, did not begin until the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Brown v. Allen. In Brown, the Court held that the violation of a constitutional right is cognizable in federal habeas and that federal courts may independently review state court adjudications of federal questions, even if the state court\u27s treatment of those legal claims was full and fair. The potential scope of habeas corpus is vast. At its root is the principle that if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. . . . Vindication of due process is precisely its historic office. However, despite the expansive tone of much of the language describing habeas corpus, its effective reach has been curtailed, especially in recent years. Motivated by concerns for the finality of convictions and federalism, the Court has erected a Byzantine morass of arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjustifiable impediments to the vindication of federal rights. The Court has even downplayed the role of habeas corpus itself. Congress may act to restrict habeas even further. To assist state inmates who confront the difficult task of a federal court challenge to the legality of their detention, we first outline the elementary steps in habeas corpus procedure. Next, we outline the State\u27s possible defenses. We then examine doctrines that affect the way a federal court treats the merits of claims presented in the petition. Finally, we address the special concerns of death-sentenced inmates who seek a stay of execution pending consideration of their habeas petitions. While an understanding of complex habeas corpus principles is important, it is perhaps secondary to the art of meaningful habeas corpus advocacy. The practitioner must convince the court that the inmate is a human being, not a remorseless criminal; that the inmate was denied a fundamentally fair trial and is not merely raising technical issues; and finally, that the inmate, rather than refusing to accept responsibility for misdeeds, did not receive basic justice in the state court

An Introduction to Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure

For many prisoners, federal habeas corpus stands as the last opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions or sentences. Simply navigating through the procedural maze of habeas practice, however, is a formidable task for inmates proceeding pro se and prisoners represented by counsel. Tragically, those who have had a fundamentally unfair trial, and even those who are innocent, may easily stumble. Since 1867, habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, has been available to state prisoners in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. The modern era of federal habeas corpus, however, did not begin until the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Brown v. Allen. In Brown, the Court held that the violation of a constitutional right is cognizable in federal habeas and that federal courts may independently review state court adjudications of federal questions, even if the state court\u27s treatment of those legal claims was full and fair. The potential scope of habeas corpus is vast. At its root is the principle that if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. . . . Vindication of due process is precisely its historic office. However, despite the expansive tone of much of the language describing habeas corpus, its effective reach has been curtailed, especially in recent years. Motivated by concerns for the finality of convictions and federalism, the Court has erected a Byzantine morass of arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjustifiable impediments to the vindication of federal rights. The Court has even downplayed the role of habeas corpus itself. Congress may act to restrict habeas even further. To assist state inmates who confront the difficult task of a federal court challenge to the legality of their detention, we first outline the elementary steps in habeas corpus procedure. Next, we outline the State\u27s possible defenses. We then examine doctrines that affect the way a federal court treats the merits of claims presented in the petition. Finally, we address the special concerns of death-sentenced inmates who seek a stay of execution pending consideration of their habeas petitions. While an understanding of complex habeas corpus principles is important, it is perhaps secondary to the art of meaningful habeas corpus advocacy. The practitioner must convince the court that the inmate is a human being, not a remorseless criminal; that the inmate was denied a fundamentally fair trial and is not merely raising technical issues; and finally, that the inmate, rather than refusing to accept responsibility for misdeeds, did not receive basic justice in the state court

Optical properties of potential-inserted quantum wells in the near infrared and Terahertz ranges

We propose an engineering of the optical properties of GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells using AlAs and InAs monolayer insertions. A quantitative study of the effects of the monolayer position and the well thickness on the interband and intersubband transitions, based on the extended-basis sp3d5s* tight-binding model, is presented. The effect of insertion on the interband transitions is compared with existing experimental data. As for intersubband transitions, we show that in a GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well including two AlAs and one InAs insertions, a three level {e1 , e2 , e3 } system where the transition energy e3-e2 is lower and the transition energy e2-e1 larger than the longitudinal optical phonon energy (36 meV) can be engineered together with a e3-e2 transition energy widely tunable through the TeraHertz range