Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel
Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel
Michigan Law Review
Landowners who sustain economic harm from arbitrary and capricious applications of land use regulations may sue the local government entities responsible for applying those regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the local government entities deprived them of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landowner who brings this claim - an "as-applied arbitrary and capricious substantive due process" claim - may in appropriate cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. Despite controversy among courts and commentators over both the definition of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause and the standard …
A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler
A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler
Michigan Law Review
Supreme Court decisions have vacillated between two incompatible readings of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Court sometimes sees this language as affording defendants and suspects a right to remain silent. This interpretation - a view that countless repetitions of the Miranda warnings have impressed upon the public - asserts that government officials have no legitimate claim to testimonial evidence tending to incriminate the person who possesses it. Although officials need not encourage a suspect to remain silent, they must remain at least neutral toward …
One Bite At The Apple: Reversals Of Convictions Tainted By Prosecutorial Misconduct And The Ban On Double Jeopardy, Rick A. Bierschbach
One Bite At The Apple: Reversals Of Convictions Tainted By Prosecutorial Misconduct And The Ban On Double Jeopardy, Rick A. Bierschbach
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after reversals of convictions tainted by prosecutorial misconduct in the submission of evidence when two conditions are met: (1) the prosecutor intentionally introduced tainted evidence, and (2) excluding the tainted evidence would have left insufficient evidence at trial to support the defendant's conviction. This Note contends that this limited extension of double jeopardy protection is both mandated by the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause and consistent with existing double jeopardy jurisprudence.