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, …

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 …

Federal Agency Investigations: Procedural Rights Of The Subpoenaed Witness, Frank C. Newman

Michigan Law Review

This article is designed to help fill a gap in the literature and to warn government attorneys, particularly, about some questionable asides in the Hannah case. We shall not deal with record-keeping requirements or with agency inspections, subpoenas duces tecum, and related search and seizure problems. The focus instead is on the subpoenaed witness; that is, a man who knows that force may be used against him unless pursuant to government command he appears and answers questions. We examine several rights that may protect the witness; and we shall also ask whether the agencies, to discharge their governmental duties, truly …

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 …