Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (3)
- State courts (3)
- Confessions (2)
- Convictions (2)
- Defendants (2)
-
- Federal courts (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Miranda v. Arizona (2)
- Postconviction challenges (2)
- Postconviction relief (2)
- Prisoners (2)
- Sentencing (2)
- Trials (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Vagueness (2)
- American Jury System (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Appellate waivers (1)
- Appointed counsel (1)
- Armed Career Criminal Act (1)
- Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Children (1)
- Claims (1)
- Coersion (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Cullen v. Pinholster (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Officiating Removal, Leah Litman
Officiating Removal, Leah Litman
Articles
For the last several years, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has quietly attempted to curtail capital defendants' representation in state postconviction proceedings. In 2011, various justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court began to call for federally funded community defender organizations to stop representing capital defendants in state postconviction proceedings. The justices argued, among other things, that the organizations' representation of capital defendants constituted impermissible federal interference with state governmental processes and burdened state judicial resources. The court also alleged the community defender organizations were in violation of federal statutes, which only authorized the organizations to assist state prisoners in federal, but …
A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
Articles
I am indebted to Professor William Pizzi for remembering—and praising—the “Gatehouses and Mansions” essay I wrote fifty years ago. A great many articles and books have been written about Miranda. So it is nice to be remembered for an article published a year before that famous case was ever decided.
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 …
Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht
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 …
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
This essay is intended to provide in brief compass a review of much that is known about the American jury system, including the jury’s historical origins, its political role, controversies over its role and structure, its performance, both absolutely and in comparison to judges and mixed tribunals, and proposals for improving the jury system. The essay is informed throughout by 50 years of research on the jury system, beginning with the 1965 publication of Kalven and Zeisel’s seminal book, The American Jury. The political importance of the jury is seen to lie more in the jury’s status as a one …
Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill
Michigan Law Review
Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the similarity between the language …
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Michigan Law Review
Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …
Residual Impact: Resentencing Implications Of Johnson's Potential Ruling On Acca's Constitutionality, Leah Litman
Residual Impact: Resentencing Implications Of Johnson's Potential Ruling On Acca's Constitutionality, Leah Litman
Articles
In January 2015, the Supreme Court directed the parties to brief and argue an additional question in Johnson v. United States: “Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague.” The order represents an unusual move because the defendant had not raised the vagueness issue and the Court issued the order after it had already heard argument on the question raised in the petition for certiorari. Commentators therefore view the order as a signal that the Court will likely invalidate the residual clause. This decision will have been several years …
Post-Sentencing Appellate Waivers, Kevin Bennardo
Post-Sentencing Appellate Waivers, Kevin Bennardo
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
A sentencing appellate waiver is a criminal defendant’s promise not to appeal her sentence. These provisions routinely appear in federal defendants’ plea agreements. With a few narrow exceptions, a knowing and voluntary sentencing appellate waiver bars a defendant from appealing all issues within the waiver’s scope. Using models of judicial behavior and empirical studies, this Article argues that the inclusion of sentencing appellate waivers in plea agreements creates bargaining inefficiencies and removes important incentives from the sentencing process. As a solution, the Article proposes that sentencing appellate waivers should take the form of separate post-sentencing agreements.
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
Articles
This Essay provides a solution to the conundrum of statements made by very young children and offered against an accused in a criminal prosecution. Currently prevailing doctrine allows one of three basic outcomes. First, in some cases the child testifies at trial. But this is not always feasible, and when it is, cross-examination is a poor method for determining the truth. Second, evidence of the child's statement may be excluded, which denies the adjudicative process of potentially valuable information. Third, the evidence may be admitted without the child testifying at trial, which leaves the accused with no practical ability to …