English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

"[N]o person should be adjudged, 'by any act whatever, to kill another, who does not die by it within a year and a day thereafter . ... " In 1894, the United States Supreme Court stated that "such is the rule in this country in prosecutions for murder, except in jurisdictions where it may be otherwise prescribed by statute."2 Since this formulation, neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has had occasion to apply the year-and-a-day rule in a federal prosecution for murder. Nevertheless, this Comment suggests that the rule remains a viable doctrine in contemporary federal jurisprudence and that courts should not overlook the rule in federal murder prosecutions. Section I of this Comment places the year-and-a-day rule in historical context by tracing it from thirteenth-century England to its arrival in the United States. Section II tracks the rule's early evolution in the United States. It concludes that the rule is best understood as a conclusive presumption and that the rule remains good law in federal jurisdictions. Section III suggests that cases involving the intentional infliction of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) will bring the year-and-a-day rule to center stage for the first time in more than a century and concludes that in the age of modern medicine the rule should survive only as a rebuttable presumption.

Taming a Phoenix: The Year-and-a-Day Rule in Federal Prosecutions for Murder