Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Series

1982

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Vol. 31, No. 9, November 24, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School Nov 1982

Vol. 31, No. 9, November 24, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School

Res Gestae

•Stan White: Advocate on the Line •The Final(s) Solution •Twelve Students Bumped From Clinic Program •SFF: Pledging the Public Interest •Regents 'Distinguish' Sax •Clinic Survives Misconduct Investigation •Notices •The "Review'' Needs a Review •MSA- Ask Not What You... •Trying to Keep Our Lines Straight •Legalese: A Question of Juris-Diction? •The Multi-(Altered) State 'Bar' Review •Boston's No Tea Party •Law in the Raw

Go to article

Vol. 31, No. 6, October 20, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School Oct 1982

Vol. 31, No. 6, October 20, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School

Res Gestae

•Positively Not Wall Street •WLSA Display to Outline Rape Problem •Public Interest Job Discussion •FLP Fundraiser to Aid Battered Women •Notices •The Legal Lemmings March •Scrimp Cocktail •High Schoolish, Fer Sure •Library Malcontents •Prison Repression: a call to action •Reader Rejects Loots' 'Left Wing Mythology' •Springsteen: Lonely Man of Faith •A Heavenly Idea for Resolving Disputes •Law in the Raw

Go to article

Vol. 31, No. 3, September 29, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School Sep 1982

Vol. 31, No. 3, September 29, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School

Res Gestae

•Losing Faith in the Legal System •Students Slumping? •Reviewing the Review •A Cure for Whatever 'Ales' Us •Notices •Senate to Act on Faculty Meeting Policy? •Stacking Up the Scholarly Staffers •The Duke Would Be Disappointed •Ballots Can't Stop Bombs •Don't Blame Us •Battling the Corporate Bias •The Latter, Beautiful, Stages of Insanity •Greco in Toledo, Oh. •NFL: Strike One Called •Dealing With the Real Issues •Dear Professor: My Goldfish Died... •Law in the Raw

Go to article

Vol. 30, No. 22, April 14, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School Apr 1982

Vol. 30, No. 22, April 14, 1982, University Of Michigan Law School

Res Gestae

•Looking at the 'Fourth Year' •Students Warned: Apply Now for Aid •Senate Sends Faculty Message on Curriculum •Elections •Notices •R.G. Misses the Boat •Affirm. Action Again •Keeping Alive the Dialogue •Assessing EI Presidente's Legacy •There's More to Law Review than Resumes •Of Double Duplicity •Beach '82! •A Chicago Tradition •Pitching Briefs, Catching Offers •Smith, Widowski Take Foosball Crown •Pepe: A Proposal in the Public Interest •Women in Law Conference: Smashing Hit •2002: Best and the Brightest? •Ellmann Retires from the Court •Best of Law in the Raw

Go to article

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel Jan 1982

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

During the 1960s, the Warren Court's decisions in the field of criminal procedure were strongly denounced by many prosecutors, police officers, and conservative politicians. Some of these critics were careful in their description of the Warren Court's record. Others let their strong opposition to several of the Court's more highly publicized decisions destroy their perception of the Court's work as a whole.

Go to article

A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar Jan 1982

A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

If the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer are any indication, Miranda v. Arizona has evoked much anger and spread much sorrow among judges, lawyers and professors. In the months and years ahead, such reaction is likely to be translated into microscopic analyses and relentless, probing criticism of the majority opinion. During this period of agonizing appraisal and reappraisal, I think it important that various assumptions and assertions in the dissenting opinions do not escape attention.

Go to article

How We Got The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule And Why We Need It, Yale Kamisar Jan 1982

How We Got The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule And Why We Need It, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Why the continuing storm of controversy over the exclusionary rule? Why the deep and widespread hostility to it? I think a recent law office search case, because it arose in a setting so unlike the typical search and seizure case, furnishes a clue. In O'Connor v. Johnson, St. Paul police obtained a warrant to search an attorney's office for business records of a client suspected of making false written statements in applying for a liquor license. The attorney happened to be present when the police arrived. Holding on to his work product file, which contained some of the records sought, …

Go to article

Selective Incorporation Revisited, Jerold H. Israel Jan 1982

Selective Incorporation Revisited, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

In June 1960 Justice Brennan's separate opinion in Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price' set forth what came to be the doctrinal foundation of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. Justice Brennan advocated adoption of what is now commonly described as the "selective incorporation" theory of the fourteenth amendment. That theory, simply put, holds that the fourteenth amendment's due process clause fully incorporates all of those guarantees of the Bill of Rights deemed to be fundamental and thereby makes those guarantees applicable to the states. During the decade that followed Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price, the Court found incorporated …

Go to article

On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel Jan 1982

On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Everyone recognizes that the laws governing criminal procedure vary somewhat from state to state. There is often a tendency, however, to underestimate the degree of diversity that exists. Even some of the most experienced practitioners believe that aside from variations on some minor matters, such as the number of peremptory challenges granted, and variation on a few major items, such as the use of the grand jury, the basic legal standards governing most procedures are approximately the same in a large majority of states. I have seen varied evidence of this misconception in practitioner discussions of law reform proposals, particularly …

Go to article