Law Commons^™

The Electronic Recording Of Criminal Interrogations, Roberto Iraola

University of Richmond Law Review

Should law enforcement officers be required to record, by video or audiotape, custodial interrogations of suspects? If so, how much, the entire interrogation or just the confession? Many prosecutors and police departments maintain that a recording requirement will hamper law enforcement and discourage suspects from talking. Proponents of this measure argue that the recording of interrogations protects against false confessions, augments the effective administration of justice, and serves to improve the relationship between the public and the police.

This article generally examines the developing case law on this question. Because of the incriminating nature of confessions, the article, by way …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Cullen D. Seltzer

University of Richmond Law Review

This article discusses recent Virginia cases and legislative developments in the area of criminal law and procedure. The article discusses cases from April of 1995 to July of 1996 and legislative changes effective July 1, 1996. This article does not discuss federal developments. Nor does the article discuss death penalty issues, as that area of the law is sufficiently particularized that, for purposes of manageability, it falls outside the scope of this discussion.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Steven D. Benjamin

University of Richmond Law Review

During the past year, the Court of Appeals of Virginia continued to be the major contributor to the development of substantive and procedural criminal law in the Commonwealth. Many of the court's decisions concerned the characterization of. police-citizen encounters in the context of both Fourth Amendment law and the rights of an accused under Miranda v. Arizona. A number of cases concerned the admissibility of uncharged misconduct, and the numerous double jeopardy opinions involved case-by-case application of Grady v. Corbin, Blockburger v. United States, and related statutes. A growing body of procedural law concerned the propriety of impanelling jurors of …

New York V. Quarles:The "Public Safety" Exception To Miranda, John Randolph Bode

University of Richmond Law Review

In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court attempted to limit the exclusionary sanction provided under Miranda v. Arizona. Quarles is a significant decision in the criminal procedure area not only because of the exception which it establishes, but because it represents "a legitimate effort by the Burger Court to reconcile the realities of effective law enforcement with the often hyper technical rules of criminal justice." Many observers have interpreted the Quarles decision as the long-awaited fruition of the conservatism now presiding over the Burger Court. However, the setting for Quarles can be traced back to the Miranda decision itself.

Rhode Island V. Innis: A Workable Definition Of "Interrogation"?, Deborah L. Fletcher

University of Richmond Law Review

In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the issue of what constitutes interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona. Innis is a significant decision in the criminal procedure area not only because of the workable standard for determining "interrogation" which it sets forth, but also because it signals the Burger Court's decision not to overrule Mirandaor to further disparage its effectiveness. However, Innis by no means represents a return to the Warren Court's solicitous approach to a suspect's Miranda rights. The Burger Court still has not raised Miranda's protections and strictures to the status of constitutionally …

Miranda V. Arizona: The Emerging Pattern, Evelyn G. Skaltsounis

University of Richmond Law Review

In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court set forth a series of specific guidelines to determine the admissibility at trial of statements elicited during police interrogation of a criminal suspect. Since 1971, the Burger Court has whittled away at the mandates of Miranda. It is possible that one major factor underlies this erosion process: the very frustrating reality that, in many situations, an obviously guilty party is allowed to go free because "the constable has blundered."

Search And Seizure- Knowledge Of Fourth Amendment Rights Not A Prerequisite To A Valid Consent Search

University of Richmond Law Review

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, guarantees to every citizen the indefeasible right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a response to a long history of English colonial abuses, the fourth amendment was intended by the drafters of the Bill of Rights to be a safeguard against governmental misuse of the writs of assistance' and the general warrant. The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the constitutional mandate of the fourth amendment as proscribing all searches and seizures which do not comply with its stringent provisions. However, certain …

New Looks At An Ancient Writ: Habeas Corpus Reexamined, Andrew P. Miller, Robert E. Shepherd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The traditional characterization of the writ of habeas corpus as an original ... civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty, rather than as a stage of the state criminal proceedings or as an appeal therefrom . . . cannot be permitted to defeat the manifest federal policy that federal constitutional rights of personal liberty shall not be denied without the fullest opportunity for plenary federal judicial review.