Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States

PDF

University of Michigan Law School

Michigan Law Review

Lawyers

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein Jun 2013

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein

Michigan Law Review

A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held …


Are Class Actions Unconstitutional?, Alexandra D. Lahav Apr 2011

Are Class Actions Unconstitutional?, Alexandra D. Lahav

Michigan Law Review

Are class actions unconstitutional? Many people-defendants and conservative legislators, not to mention scholars at the American Enterprise Institute-would like them to be. For opponents of the class action, Martin Redish's book Wholesale Justice provides some of the most theoretically sophisticated arguments available. The book is a major contribution both to the scholarly literature on class actions and to the larger political debate about this powerful procedural device. The arguments it presents will surely be debated in courtrooms as well as classrooms.


Motions For Appointment Of Counsel And The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michigan Law Review May 1985

Motions For Appointment Of Counsel And The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that denials of motions for appointment of counsel should be immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Part I examines the extent to which the collateral order doctrine modifies the finality rule. It argues that recent Supreme Court decisions that at first appear to have narrowed the doctrine have in fact only restated it. Part II applies the collateral order doctrine to orders denying appointment of counsel, concluding that such denials qualify for immediate review. Part III argues that policy considerations support this conclusion.


Brandeis, Michigan Law Review Feb 1984

Brandeis, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Brandeis by Lewis J. Paper