Digital Commons Network^™

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …

Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt

Michigan Law Review

Currently, the circuits are divided on whether comments by co-defendants' counsel on a defendant's silence impair that defendant's fifth amendment rights. Furthermore, among the circuits that regard such commentary as potentially prejudicial, disagreement exists over the proper test for identifying such comments. This Note asserts that the risk of prejudicing a defendant's fifth amendment rights is too great to allow counsel any comment on a defendant's decision to testify or to remain silent.

Part I of this Note examines the historical evolution of the privilege against self-incrimination and the policy goals behind the privilege. The Note argues that prohibiting comments …

Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley

Michigan Law Review

In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, Donald Ayer levels a series of attacks on the Griffin decision. Specifically, he maintains that the decision is at once too broad, because it requires "almost automatic reversal where there are any remarks explicitly focused on the defendant's silence and the inference of guilt to be drawn from it" regardless of the strength of the prosecution's case, and too narrow, because it fails to prevent the natural prejudice against the nontestifying defendant that may arise in the minds of the jurors without any encouragement from prosecutor or judge. Ayer also …

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Compulsory Process Ii, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the …

The Compulsory Process Clause, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article traces the history of compulsory process, from its origin in the English transition from an inquisitional to an adversary system of procedure to its eventual adoption in the American Bill of Rights. Part II examines the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Washington v. Texas, which recognized after a century and a half of silence that the compulsory process clause was designed to enable the defendant not only to produce witnesses, but to put them on the stand and have them heard. Part III studies the implications of compulsory process for the defendant's case, from the …

Grand Jury Secrecy, Richard M. Calkins

Michigan Law Review

When a leading state such as Illinois enacts "reform" legislation, an impact on the legislatures of other jurisdictions may be anticipated. Accordingly, a need exists for an examination of this legislation in the light of the common-law background of grand jury secrecy and for a further analysis of it in the face of the growing trend toward more liberalized discovery of grand jury minutes in other jurisdictions. It is the contention of the author that such an empirical study will demonstrate that this legislation adopted by Illinois is contrary to all modern judicial thinking and is, in fact, a retrogressive …

Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Jencks Act like the rule it purportedly reaffirmed, was designed to insure "justice." Although the stated purpose of the act was to preserve the rights of any defendant under due process of law, the question remains unresolved whether, in articulating the rule in terms of "justice," the Court in Jencks v. United States incorporated it into the requirements of due process. To be sure, the underlying intent of both the Court and Congress is unclear, but of far more concern than the intent is whether the Jencks Act, in fact, violates the constitutional mandates of the Fifth and Sixth …

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Danger Of Prosecution In Other Jurisdictions, George R. Haydon, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, a witness called by the New Hampshire attorney general in an investigation of subversive activities, was granted statutory immunity in New Hampshire from criminal prosecution which might arise from his testimony and was ordered to testify. Since any disclosures would create serious danger of prosecution by the United States and Massachusetts, whose agencies were also investigating his activities, defendant refused to testify despite the grant of immunity, invoking the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the state constitution. He was found guilty of contempt, subject to his exceptions regarding the constitutionality of the immunity statute. On hearing before the state …

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …

Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.

Griswold: The Fifth Amendment Today, George S. Flint S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Fifth Amendment Today. By Erwin N. Griswold

Constitutional Law - Legislative Contempt Power-Procedure Against Witness For Conduct Before Commission Composed Of Legislators And Others, Julius B. Poppinga

Michigan Law Review

The Massachusetts General Court, for the purpose of investigating communism and subversive activities within the Commonwealth, established by joint resolution a "special commission" composed of two members of the Senate, three members of the House, and two persons to be appointed by the governor. When the commission summoned Otis A. Hood to appear before it, he refused to be sworn as a witness without first receiving witness fees, and flippantly expressed his demand for payment. The general court requested an advisory opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, propounding three questions: (1) whether the special commission was a committee …

Evidence - Constitutional Problems In Compelling The Attendance Of Witnesses Outside The State, Paul J. Keller, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Cooper, a citizen of New Jersey, was sought as a witness by a defendant in a criminal prosecution in a New York court in accordance with a New Jersey statute, which allowed such a procedure upon certain conditions. The conditions included a hearing in New Jersey on the summons and provisions for compensation and immunity from service of process while acting on the writ outside the state. At the New Jersey hearing on the summons Cooper objected on the ground that the statute was an unconstitutional deprivation of his liberty. Held, that the statute is constitutional. In re Cooper …