Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
People v. Gonzales involved an issue that continues to divide lawyers, judges, scholars, politicians, as well as the general public: how best to protect individuals from law enforcement conduct that violates constitutional protections? This question is particularly controversial in the context of a criminal case, since the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence often results in the alleged criminal going free. In Gonzales, the California Supreme Court was asked to adopt the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights. A majority of California Supreme Court justices answered this in the negative. Justice Carter disagreed, and his analysis provided …
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Crooker: An Early Step Towards Miranda Warnings And The Expansion Of The Fifth Amendment To Pre-Trial Confessions, Helen Y. Chang
Publications
By the middle of the 20th century, police interrogation of criminal suspects had developed into a fine art designed to extract confessions. The use of the “third degree,” otherwise known as the infliction of physical or mental suffering, was not uncommon. “[T]he most frequently utilized interrogation techniques have involved mental and psychological stratagems—trickery, deceit, deception, cajolery, subterfuge, chicanery, wheedling, false pretenses of sympathy, and various other artifices and ploys.” As the United States Supreme Court noted in its famous Miranda v. Arizona decision, this type of police interrogation involved “inherent compulsion,” was “inherently coercive,” “exact[ed] a heavy toll on individual …
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Publications
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. v. The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District dealt with a difficult balancing question in First Amendment jurisprudence: to what degree are the rights of a speaker espousing unpopular views protected when such speech engenders disruptive protests— protests which themselves constitute a form of speech? Are the free speech rights of the unpopular speaker paramount? Do opponents have the right to protest such speech to the point at which the protests are so disturbing that the speech cannot go forward, in effect giving opponents a “heckler’s veto?”