exercise privilege in Alaska

1994Recognizing that, under New York law, this privilege (along with the husband-wife and physician-patient privileges) did not apply in child protective proceedings, the parents nonetheless argued that, "absent a legislative expression prohibiting the exercise of a privilege in custody cases, the courts should not judicially impose such a limitation." Id. at 385-86 (emphasis added).

1994Recognizing that, under New York law, this privilege (along with the husband-wife and physician-patient privileges) did not apply in child protective proceedings, the parents nonetheless argued that, “absent a legislative expression prohibiting the exercise of a privilege in custody cases, the courts should not judicially impose such a limitation.” Id. at 385-86 (emphasis added).

1985See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (defendant’s constitutional confrontation right required disclosure of primary prosecution witness’ juvenile probation status, despite court rule barring disclosure of juvenile record); Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (“when conflict is found between the constitutional right of confrontation and the exercise of a privilege based on public policy, the constitutional right must control”) (involving marital privilege).

1985See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (defendant’s constitutional confrontation right required disclosure of primary prosecution witness’ juvenile probation status, despite court rule barring disclosure of juvenile record); Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (“when conflict is found between the constitutional right of confrontation and the exercise of a privilege based on public policy, the constitutional right must control”) (involving marital privilege).

2024On a general level, there is a consensus among leading scholars and courts that the exercise of immunity by organizations is undesirable. 66 Immunity shields 65 Kinegak v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 129 P.3d 887, 889 (Alaska 2006). 66 See Georgetown Coll. v. Hughes, 130 F.2d 810, 812, 827 (D.C.

2024On a general level, there is a consensus among leading scholars and courts that the exercise of immunity by organizations is undesirable. 66 Immunity shields 65 Kinegak v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 129 P.3d 887, 889 (Alaska 2006). 66 See Georgetown Coll. v. Hughes, 130 F.2d 810, 812, 827 (D.C.

1989The operation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act was explained in some detail in Hart v. National Indemnity Co., 422 P.2d 1015, 1018-1021 (Alaska 1967).

1985See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (defendant’s constitutional confrontation right required disclosure of primary prosecution witness’ juvenile probation status, despite court rule barring disclosure of juvenile record); Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (“when conflict is found between the constitutional right of confrontation and the exercise of a privilege based on public policy, the constitutional right must control”) (involving marital privilege).

1976ABA Project on Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function, § 3.6 at 88 (Approved Draft 1971). . 437 P.2d 642, 645 (Alaska 1968). . 527 P.2d 459 (Alaska 1974). .

1967In Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 616 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110 (1965) (footnote omitted), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by -the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt. 11 . 224 F.2d 168, 170 (10th Cir. 1955). 12 .

1967In Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 616 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110 (1965) (footnote omitted), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by -the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt. 11 . 224 F.2d 168, 170 (10th Cir. 1955). 12 .

1967In Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 616 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110 (1965) (footnote omitted), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by -the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt. 11 . 224 F.2d 168, 170 (10th Cir. 1955). 12 .