
Criminal Procedure: 2025 Case and Statutory Supplement
New to the 2025 Edition:
Significant new decisions and materials, among them:
- Analysis of important, recent decisions in the area of Criminal Procedure, including several decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent terms and discussion of policy issues at the forefront of criminal law
- Changes in Investigation chapters:
- Barnes v. Felix (determining whether there is excessive police force)
- Changes in Adjudication chapters:
- Glossip v. Oklahoma (Napue violations and the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony during trial)
- Andrew v. White (how the improper introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at trial can constitute a due process violation)
New to the 2025 Edition:
Significant new decisions and materials, among them:
- Analysis of important, recent decisions in the area of Criminal Procedure, including several decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent terms and discussion of policy issues at the forefront of criminal law
- Changes in Investigation chapters:
- Barnes v. Felix (determining whether there is excessive police force)
- Changes in Adjudication chapters:
- Glossip v. Oklahoma (Napue violations and the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony during trial)
- Andrew v. White (how the improper introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at trial can constitute a due process violation)
Original: $20.00
-65%$20.00
$7.00Description
New to the 2025 Edition:
Significant new decisions and materials, among them:
- Analysis of important, recent decisions in the area of Criminal Procedure, including several decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent terms and discussion of policy issues at the forefront of criminal law
- Changes in Investigation chapters:
- Barnes v. Felix (determining whether there is excessive police force)
- Changes in Adjudication chapters:
- Glossip v. Oklahoma (Napue violations and the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony during trial)
- Andrew v. White (how the improper introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at trial can constitute a due process violation)