Law Commons^™

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …

Advising A Witness To Exercise His Privilege Against Self-Incrimination When The Adviser's Motive Is To Protect Himself Is An Obstruction Of Justice-Cole V. United States, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, who had perjured himself before a federal grand jury, feared that the testimony of his former employee before the same body would reveal the perjury. Knowing that the employee had previously filed a false affidavit with the McClellan Committee, defendant was able to persuade him to invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. When the former employee later voluntarily made a full disclosure to government agents, defendant was indicted by a second grand jury and convicted of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the administration of justice in violation of section 1503 of the Federal Criminal Code. On appeal to the Court …

Betts V. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right To Counself And Due Process Values, Yale Kamisar

Michigan Law Review

I am quite distressed by talk that the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio "suggests by analogy" that the Court may now overrule Betts v. Brady. For whether one talks about the fourth or the sixth amendment, there is much to be said for Justice Harlan's dissenting views in Mapp. "[W]hatever configurations ... have been developed in the particularizing federal precedents" should not be "deemed a part of 'ordered liberty,' and as such ... enforceable against the States .... [W]e would not be true to the Fourteenth Amendment were we merely to stretch the general principle [ of …

Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Jencks Act like the rule it purportedly reaffirmed, was designed to insure "justice." Although the stated purpose of the act was to preserve the rights of any defendant under due process of law, the question remains unresolved whether, in articulating the rule in terms of "justice," the Court in Jencks v. United States incorporated it into the requirements of due process. To be sure, the underlying intent of both the Court and Congress is unclear, but of far more concern than the intent is whether the Jencks Act, in fact, violates the constitutional mandates of the Fifth and Sixth …

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

Besides the two specific problems which the new federal act presents, namely, whether it imposes nonjudicial functions on federal courts, and whether it should, does and can protect against the substantial danger of state prosecution, there is a general objection that one can raise against it, and to other acts of the same type: they relate to the area of belief and opinion, the very area which was involved when the English people, spearheaded by the Puritans, engaged in the struggle with the Crown that finally resulted in the establishment of a right of silence. At least if we are …

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

At the last term the United States Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States upheld the constitutionality of paragraph (c) of a federal act of August 1954 which seeks to compel the testimony of communists and other political deviants. Paragraph (c) relates to witnesses before federal courts and grand juries. The Court specifically left open the question of the validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) relating to congressional witnesses. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Black, wrote a dissent.

It is our purpose to consider the background, history and terms of this compulsory …

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …