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, …

The Child Sexual Abuse Literature: A Call For Greater Objectivity, John E.B. Myers

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse by Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager., The Battle and the Backlash: The Child Sexual Abuse War by David Hechler., On Trial: America's Courts and Their Treatment of Sexually Abused Children by Billie Wright Dziech and Chales B. Schudson.

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 …

Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in a civil proceeding for giving "don't remember" answers, after having been granted immunity from prosecution, to questions concerning his activities, asked during a grand jury investigation of an attempted homicide. For his refusal to testify, the defendant was given the maximum penalty provided for criminal contempt under the applicable statute. After paying the fine and serving the sentence, the defendant was brought before the same grand jury thirty-five days later and was asked the same questions. The defendant repeated the "don't remember" answers and was again fined and incarcerated. …

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 …

Evidence - Examination Of Witnesses - Surprise As Grounds For Impeaching A Party's Own Witness, John A. Ziegler, Jr. S.Ed., Raymond Dittrich

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was convicted of the statutory rape of his stepdaughter. Immediately following the alleged offense, the victim had signed a statement accusing the defendant of the crime charged. Before the trial, however, the district attorney was advised by the defense counsel, and by the victim herself, that the written statement was not true. At the trial, when called as a witness by the commonwealth, the girl repudiated her earlier statement, whereupon the district attorney pleaded surprise and was permitted to use the prior statement to impeach. On appeal, held, affirmed. The district attorney was "actually surprised" when the …

Legislation - Federal Criminal Procedure - Modification Of Jencks Decision, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. During the trial, the court denied defendant's motion to order the government to produce for defendant's inspection reports submitted by government witnesses to government agents. The reports dealt with the same subject about which these witnesses later testified. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one justice dissenting. The government has a privilege to refuse to surrender statements made by its prospective witnesses, but it may claim the privilege only at the expense of a dismissal of its case …

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 …