Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
Michigan Law Review
Confession law is in a state of collapse. Fifty years ago, three different doctrines imposed constitutional limits on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: Miranda doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, Massiah doctrine under the Sixth Amendment, and voluntariness doctrine under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted Miranda and Massiah, effectively leaving suspects with only voluntariness doctrine to protect them during police interrogations. The voluntariness test is a notoriously vague case-by-case standard. In this Article, I argue that if voluntariness is going to be the framework for …
A Tale Of Two Sciences, Erin Murphy
A Tale Of Two Sciences, Erin Murphy
Michigan Law Review
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . .. . So might one describe the contrasting portraits of DNA's ascension in the criminal justice system that are drawn in David Kaye's The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence and Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli's Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties. For Kaye, the double helix stands as the icon of twenty-first-century achievement, a science menaced primarily by the dolts (lawyers, judges, and the occasional analyst) who misuse it. For Krimsky and Simoncelli, DNA is a seductive forensic tool that is …
Evidence-Police Regulation By Rules Of Evidence-Results Of The Mcnabb Case, John B. Waite
Evidence-Police Regulation By Rules Of Evidence-Results Of The Mcnabb Case, John B. Waite
Michigan Law Review
In McNabb v. United States the Supreme Court promulgated novel judicial legislation, the gist of which is that confessions or admissions of crime made while the accused is in custody without having been brought before a magistrate as required by law are inadmissible in evidence. That judicial pronouncement assumed that the utterances were made without compulsion, and prohibited their use solely because at the time they were made the officers of justice were themselves disregarding the law-the procedural requirement that persons arrested be taken immediately before a magistrate. In Justice Frankfurter's phrase, "a conviction resting on evidence secured through such …