Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Dickerson v. United States (8)
- Miranda v. Arizona (8)
- Fifth Amendment (6)
- Confession (3)
- Custodial interrogation (3)
-
- Due Process Clause (3)
- Michigan v. Tucker (3)
- New York v. Quarles (3)
- Police interrogation (3)
- Self-Incrimination Clause (3)
- City of Boerne v. Flores (2)
- Compulsion (2)
- Exclusionary rule (2)
- Harris v. New York (2)
- Interrogation (2)
- Kamisar (Yale) (2)
- Mapp v. Ohio (2)
- Oregon v. Elstad (2)
- Pleadings (2)
- Prophylactic rule (2)
- Rule of law (2)
- Section 3501 (2)
- Videotaping (2)
- Voluntariness (2)
- 2254(d)(1) (1)
- AEDPA (1)
- Active notification (1)
- Alex B. Eyssen (1)
- Article III (1)
- Artway test (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 26 of 26
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 3 - Complete Issue
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 3 - Complete Issue
Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
No abstract provided.
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 3 - On The Importance Of Suggestibility Research In Assessing The Credibility Of Children’S Testimony, David A. Martindale
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 3 - On The Importance Of Suggestibility Research In Assessing The Credibility Of Children’S Testimony, David A. Martindale
Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
In the spring of 1999, Professor Thomas Lyon of the University of Southern California Law School published a lengthy law review article in which he argued that the introduction into evidence of research on the suggestibility of child witnesses was not of assistance to triers of fact.1 Lyon’s article has found its way into judicial training packets and has been posted to electronic bulletin boards sponsored by organizations with interest in custody evaluations, psychology and law, and related topics. Because judges are soon likely to encounter arguments based upon Lyon’s article, I wish to alert judges to what I believe …
Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala
Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala
Faculty Publications and Presentations
No abstract provided.
Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala
Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala
Jeffrey C. Tuomala
No abstract provided.
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 1 - Robes And Rehabilitation: How Judges Can Help Offenders “Make Good”, David B. Wexler
Court Review: Volume 38, Issue 1 - Robes And Rehabilitation: How Judges Can Help Offenders “Make Good”, David B. Wexler
Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
Problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts—may be the most obvious examples of “therapeutic jurisprudence in action,” but it is crucial to recognize the potential application of therapeutic jurisprudence generally—in civil cases, appellate cases, family law cases, and, of course, in criminal and juvenile cases. The importance of the therapeutic jurisprudence perspective beyond the specialized problem-solving court context was underscored by a “vision statement” recently agreed to by the District Court for Clark County, Washington.
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Michigan Law Review
The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
The Politics Of Judicial Reform In Japan: The Rule Of Law At Last?, Setsuo Miyazawa
The Politics Of Judicial Reform In Japan: The Rule Of Law At Last?, Setsuo Miyazawa
Faculty Scholarship
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the most recent changes in Japan's political environment that could radically alter its judicial system and legal profession in the near future. Reform of the judicial system and legal profession has now been placed on the national agenda, and the cast of players involved has spread from the traditional groups of legal professionals (judges, prosecutors, and attorneys) to the major actors of the larger political process, namely the Liberal Democratic Party (Jiya Minshu T6) ("LDP"), the ruling conservative party, and the Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren), one of the most influential organizations …
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Punishing Thought: A Narrative Deconstructing The Interpretive Dance Of Hate Crime Legislation, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 123 (2001), Anne B. Ryan
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Constitutional Formalism And The Meaning Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey,' a case that likely will have a significant impact on the administration of criminal justice in federal and state courts. The Court imposed a procedural limitation on prosecutors by restricting the types of facts that may be proven at sentencing rather than at trial. Specifically, the Court adopted a constitutional principle that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum" is an element of the offense of conviction. Under wellestablished constitutional doctrine, the Constitution's full procedural protections, especially the necessity of …
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …
Pushing Evolutionary Analysis Of Law Or Evolving Law: Design Without A Designer, Jeffrey E. Stake
Pushing Evolutionary Analysis Of Law Or Evolving Law: Design Without A Designer, Jeffrey E. Stake
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
The European Court Of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence On Issues Of Forced Disappearances, Gobind Singh Sethi
The European Court Of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence On Issues Of Forced Disappearances, Gobind Singh Sethi
Human Rights Brief
No abstract provided.
Blind Faith And Reasonable Doubts: Investigating Beliefs In The Rule Of Law, Jessie Allen
Blind Faith And Reasonable Doubts: Investigating Beliefs In The Rule Of Law, Jessie Allen
Seattle University Law Review
The article explores the meaning of the rule of law within the American political and legal systems by analyzing the concept in the abstract and its application in President Clinton’s impeachment.
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Publications
No abstract provided.
Getting It Right From The Beginning: A Critical Examination Of Current Criminal Defense In Texas And Proposal For A Statewide Public Defender System., Rebecca Copeland
Getting It Right From The Beginning: A Critical Examination Of Current Criminal Defense In Texas And Proposal For A Statewide Public Defender System., Rebecca Copeland
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Does Community Notification For Sex Offenders Violate The Eighth Amendment's Prohibition Against Cruel And Unusual Punishment - A Focus On Vigilantism Resulting From Megan's Law., Alex B. Eyssen
St. Mary's Law Journal
Community notification of a sex offender’s presence may be violating the Eighth Amendment’s protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Under Megan’s Law and other sex offender registration statutes, individuals that have completed a prison sentence for a sex crime may have to register as a sex offender. The information of the individual including his name, address, physical description, date of birth, social security number, employer, offense, and picture, is publicly disseminated. As an unintended consequence, individuals who have served their time may have to suffer additional punishment in the form of harassment, vigilantism, and violence.
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Toward A Comparative Economics Of Plea Bargaining (With Thomas Miceli), Richard Adelstein
Toward A Comparative Economics Of Plea Bargaining (With Thomas Miceli), Richard Adelstein
Richard Adelstein
A comparison of adversarial and inquisitorial approaches to criminal adjudication and its implications for plea bargaining.