Digital Commons Network^™

Standing Mute At Arrest As Evidence Of Guilt: The 'Right To Silence' Under Attack, Frank R. Herrmann S.J., Brownlow M. Speer

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

It is commonly understood that an arrested person has a right to remain silent and that the government may not use his or her silence to prove guilt at trial. Three Circuit Courts of Appeal, however, reject this understanding. They allow the prosecution to use an arrested person's pre-Miranda silence as direct evidence of guilt. This article argues that those Circuits are wrong. The article, first, demonstrates the historical antiquity of the Common Law principle that a detained person has the right to stand mute. Though the right was limited by statutory incursion and in tension, at times, with the …

J.D.B. V. North Carolina And The Reasonable Person, Christopher Jackson

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

This Term, the Supreme Court was presented with a prime opportunity to provide some much-needed clarification on a "backdrop" issue of law-one of many topics that arises in a variety of legal contexts, but is rarely analyzed on its own terms. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court considered whether age was a relevant factor in determining if a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes, and thus must have her rights read to her before being questioned by the police. Miranda, like dozens of other areas of law, employs a reasonable person test on the custodial question: it asks …

Markedly Low: An Argument To Raise The Burden Of Proof For Patent False Marking, Caroline Ayres Teichner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claims—namely, intent to deceive the public—by a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can …

Proposed Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In the abstract, the site-specific ability to issue conditional approvals offers local governments the flexible option of permitting a development proposal while simultaneously requiring the applicant to offset the project’s external impacts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the exercise of this option in Nollan and Dolan by establishing a constitutional takings framework unique to exaction disputes. This exaction takings construct has challenged legal scholars on several fronts for the better part of the past two decades. For one, Nollan and Dolan place a far greater burden on the government in justifying exactions it attaches to a development approval than …

Beware Of Wooden Nickels: The Paradox Of Florida's Legislative Overreaction In The Wake Of Kelo, Ann Marie Cavazos

Journal Publications

This article addresses Florida's reaction to the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Court provided a more expansive view of "the public use" of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to include taking property from one private owner and transferring it to a corporation or non-private citizen when the transfer is deemed by the lawmakers to be in the public good or for a public purpose. Florida, together with several other states, concluded that such eminent domain takings, while constitutionally permissible, offend the states' sense of fair play as it relates to …

Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …

The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a "mere pretext" and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an "unworkable mechanism" for evaluating public use cases.

Gallenthin V. Kaur: A Comparative Analysis Of How The New Jersey And New York Courts Approach Judicial Review Of The Exercise Of Eminent Domain For Redevelopment, Ronald K. Chen

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article explores two explanations for why New Jersey and New York take different approaches to judicial review of exercises of eminent domain. Part I examines the approach of both states and their differing procedures for review of administrative agency determinations. Part II discusses how each states' courts and legislatures define "blight." Part III examines how New York's approach leaves municipal officials and redevelopers free to use the more flexible concept of "underutilization" as a proxy for "blight."

Public Use In The Dirigiste Tradition: Private And Public Benefit In An Era Of Agglomeration, Steven J. Eagle

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Dirigisme is the "policy of state direction and control in economic and social matters. This Article examines dirigisme as it relates to state control of land use. It also analyzes the development of eminent domain law and the requirement that takings be for public use. The author argues that the New York Court of Appeals "subordinates constitutional protections for private property to centralized development," specifically examining the recent Goldstein and Kaur opinions. The Article also discusses the implications of condemnation for transfer for private redevelopment, including lack of transparency, secondary rent seeking, possibilities of corruption, and the inefficient use of …

Reclaiming The Promise Of The Judicial Branch: Toward A More Meaningful Standard Of Judicial Review As Applied To New York Eminent Domain Law, Paula Franzese

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article asserts that the New York model of eminent domain and judicial review must be reworked to provide a meaningful balance between private property rights and concerns for public good. Part I sets forth current doctrine and procedure which New York agencies must follow when exercising the power of eminent domain. Part II explores how blight has become a "standardless standard" in New York. Part III examines New York courts' reluctance to overturn agency decisions and the potential for abuse that this creates. Part IV examines other jurisdictions which have imposed stricter standards when examining public use. Part V …

The Use And Abuse Of Blight In Eminent Domain, Martin E. Gold, Lynne B. Sagalyn

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the term "blight" and how it is used in eminent domain cases. Part I discusses the development of the term and how various states define it. Part II lays out a hierarchy which may be used to compare the private benefits on one hand and the public benefits on the other hand in redevelopment projects. In Part III, the Columbia University expansion in Manhattanville is examined, at both the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals levels. Part IV discusses how forty-three states redefined blight after the Kelo case. Part V discusses how political and business …

Not In My Atlantic Yards: Examining Netroots’ Role In Eminent Domain Reform, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded the state's power to condemn private property and transfer it to other private owners under the Fifth Amendment, there have been significant calls to curb the power of eminent domain through statutory reform. Scholars and jurists in favor of eminent domain reform have asserted that legislation is needed to protect private property rights against the rising tide of state power, with many arguing that such reform should incorporate a public approval process into land use decisions. Those opposed to eminent-domain reform argue that empowering …