Law Commons^™

Cabining Judicial Discretion Over Forensic Evidence With A New Special Relevance Rule, Emma F.E. Shoucair

Michigan Law Review

Modern forensic evidence suffers from a number of flaws, including insufficient scientific grounding, exaggerated testimony, lack of uniform best practices, and an inefficacious standard for admission that regularly allows judges to admit scientifically unsound evidence. This Note discusses these problems, lays out the current landscape of forensic science reform, and suggests the addition of a new special relevance rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and similar rules in state evidence codes). This proposed rule would cabin judicial discretion to admit non-DNA forensic evidence by barring prosecutorial introduction of such evidence in criminal trials absent a competing defense expert or …

Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht

Michigan Law Review

Cullen v. Pinholster foreclosed federal courts from considering new evidence when reviewing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) petitions for claims previously adjudicated on the merits in state court. This decision has a particularly adverse effect on petitioners whose state habeas counsel left an incomplete or undeveloped record. This Note discusses strategies for victims of ineffective state habeas counsel to avoid the hostile mandate of Pinholster. It argues that, in light of Martinez v. Ryan’s recognition of the importance of counsel in initialreview collateral proceedings, courts should be wary of dismissing claims left un- or underdeveloped by ineffective state habeas counsel. It …

Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose

Michigan Law Review

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial at both the state and federal levels. Attempts to increase funding for indigent defense by bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims have been thwarted by high procedural and substantive hurdles, and consequently these attempts have failed to bring significant change. This Note argues that, because ineffective assistance of counsel litigation is most likely a dead end for system-wide reform, indigent defenders should challenge the constitutionality of underfunding based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial. Existing speedy trial jurisprudence suggests that the overworking and furloughing of …

The Historical Origins Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination At Common Law, John H. Langbein

Michigan Law Review

This essay explains that the true origins of the common law privilege are to be found not in the high politics of the English revolutions, but in the rise of adversary criminal procedure at the end of the eighteenth century. The privilege against self-incrimination at common law was the work of defense counsel.

Part I of this essay discusses the several attributes of early modem criminal procedure that combined, until the end of the eighteenth century, to prevent the development of the common law privilege. Part II explains how prior scholarship went astray in locating the common law privilege against …

Taking The Fifth: Reconsidering The Origins Of The Constitutional Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Eben Moglen

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this essay is to cast doubt on two basic elements of the received historical wisdom concerning the privilege as it applies to British North America and the early United States. First, early American criminal procedure reflected less tenderness toward the silence of the criminal accused than the received wisdom has claimed. The system could more reasonably be said to have depended on self-incrimination than to have eschewed it, and this dependence increased rather than decreased during the provincial period for reasons intimately connected with the economic and social context of the criminal trial in colonial America.

Second, …

I Cannot Tell A Lie: The Standard For New Trial In False Testimony Cases, Daniel Wolf

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the question of what standard should be used for granting a new trial when a defendant's conviction is alleged to have been based, at least in part, on false testimony. Part I demonstrates the failure of the existing standards to strike a satisfactory balance between defendants' rights and the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Part II argues that motions for retrial based upon false testimony should be governed by a standard drawn not only from newly discovered evidence cases generally, but also from cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Part III suggests that the proper test …

Book Review, Arthur H. Sherry

Michigan Law Review

A book review of Criminal Procedure by Abraham S. Goldstein and Leonard Orland, and Cases and Comments on Criminal Procedure by Fred E. Inbau, James R. Thompson, James B. Haddad, James B. Zagel and Gary L. Starkman, Modern Criminal Procedure, 4ht Ed by Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Jerold H. Israel, The Process of Criminal Justice: Investigation by H. Richard Uviller, Criminal Process, 2nd Ed by Lloyd L. Weinreb

Invoking Summary Criminal Contempt Procedures--Use Of Abuse? United States V. Dellinger --The "Chicago Seven" Contempts, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In late August of 1968, while delegates to the Democratic National Convention were arriving in Chicago, a group of several thousand demonstrators gathered in the city's Lincoln Park to protest the Convention, the Vietnam War, and the city's refusal to grant the group a permit to hold rallies and marches during the Convention. The week that followed was marred by violent confrontations between the demonstrators and the city's police.1 This violence in Chicago provided the impetus for an indictment by a federal grand jury of the defendants in United States v. Dellinger.

Criminal Justice In Germany: Ii, Hans Julius Wolff

Michigan Law Review

The trial (Hauptverhandlung) is the main and central part of the whole criminal proceeding. All that is brought forward in the trial and only what is brought forward there can furnish the basis for the verdict. Whatever has preceded the trial proper becomes irrelevant as soon as the trial is opened.

The principles governing the trial are publicity, orality, immediateness, and concentration.

Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal - Reversal Of Conviction Despite Guilt As Rebuke To The Administration Of Justice, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In a prosecution for murder the prosecuting attorney, in his opening address, improperly stated that the evidence would show that both defendants had previous records for burglary and robbery, had served time in penitentiaries, and that the state would ask that the two men be hanged on the basis of this and other evidence. No objection or move for a mistrial was made at the time by the defendants, nor was the court requested to instruct the jury to disregard the remarks. Defendants were unquestionably guilty of murder, the evidence for the state being conclusive, while that of the defendants …

Crimes-Influence From The Defendants Failure To Testify

Michigan Law Review

The testimony given on a trial for murder indicated that the defendant had shot and killed one of his pursuers while fleeing the scene of a robbery in which he had taken a principal part. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant, while not compellable, was competent to be a witness in his own behalf; and that although his failure to take the stand raised no presumption of his guilt, if facts were testified to which were accusations against the defendant which he could by his oath deny, and he failed to take the stand in his own …

Crimes-Right Of Jury To Recommend Mercy

Michigan Law Review

In a trial for murder, under a statute which provided that if the jury found the accused guilty of murder they might recommend him or her to the mercy of the court, thus reducing the punishment from death to life imprisonment, the court instructed the jury, ''You cannot of your own free will recommend or not recommend [mercy] because you are opposed to capital punishment." Exception was taken on the grounds that this circumscribed the statutory privilege of the jury to recommend mercy. Held, the instruction was erroneous and constituted grounds for new trial. State v. Blakely (S. C. …