Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!eff!mnemonic From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Forced Entry Message-ID: <1991Feb12.155738.26614@eff.org> Date: 12 Feb 91 15:57:38 GMT References: <3326@igloo.scum.com> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 34 In article ckd@cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: > > Bill> == Bill HMRP Vajk > > Bill> I note with mild amusement the mindset of the author of the text. > Bill> It is obvious who the defendant in Miller v. U.S. was. It wasn't > Bill> Miller. > >Actually, the *original* defendant was probably Miller. If I recall my >Biz Law class properly (it's been a couple years, and it wasn't exactly >my major, so your mileage may vary, etc., etc... Mike Godwin can >probably affirm/refute this): I think you're probably right, Chris, although I cannot lay hands on the text of this particular decision (there's a Miller v. U.S. in my criminal-procedure hornbook, but it's a different case). In federal appellate cases, the first named party in the case is generally the appellant, who may well have been a criminal defendant in the proceedings below. Example: Mapp v. Ohio, which established the exclusionary rule for state police action, has Mapp listed first, since she appealed the case. But Ms. Mapp was the defendant originally. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "That information, as I have repeated infinitely mnemonic@eff.org | to myself, is classified ... though the keeping Electronic Frontier | of secrets ... seems less meaningful to me now." Foundation | --Major Garland Briggs