Law Commons^™

Opposing Mr. Big In Principle, David Milward

Dr. David Milward

No abstract provided.

Taking A Stand On Taking The Stand: The Effect Of A Prior Criminal Record On The Decision To Testify And On Trial Outcomes, Theodore Eisenberg, Valerie P. Hans

Valerie P. Hans

This article uses unique data from over 300 criminal trials in four large counties to study the relations between the existence of a prior criminal record and defendants testifying at trial, between testifying at trial and juries' learning about a criminal record, and between juries' learning about a criminal record and their decisions to convict or acquit. Sixty percent of defendants without criminal records testified compared to 45 percent with criminal records. For testifying defendants with criminal records, juries learned of those records in about half the cases. Juries rarely learned about criminal records unless defendants testified. After controlling for …

Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialism, Brady Violations, And The Prosecutorial Organizational Culture, Hadar Aviram

Hadar Aviram

Recently, in Connick v. Thompson (2011), the Supreme Court held that the failure of several prosecutors to disclose to the defense the blood type of the perpetrator, which did not match the defendant’s blood type, was not a systematic defect that required training of staff. According to the Court the prosecutors’ misconduct, and lack of training in Brady discovery duties, did not constitute “deliberate indifference” by the municipality, which would have entitled the exonerated defendant to relief under §1983. This Article criticizes the decision--and Brady policies in general—for their narrowness and excessive reliance on indications of intent or bad faith. …

Where Did My Privilege Go? Congress And Its Discretion To Ignore The Attorney-Client Privilege, Don Berthiaume, Jeffrey Ansley

Don R Berthiaume

“The right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience or executive branch whimsy. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted... However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law.”[1] So said Senator Arlen Specter on February 13, 2009, just seven months before Congress chose to ignore the very privilege he lauded. Why then, if the right to counsel is as important as Senator Specter articulated, does Congress maintain …

Standing Mute At Arrest As Evidence Of Guilt: The 'Right To Silence' Under Attack, Frank R. Herrmann S.J., Brownlow M. Speer

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

It is commonly understood that an arrested person has a right to remain silent and that the government may not use his or her silence to prove guilt at trial. Three Circuit Courts of Appeal, however, reject this understanding. They allow the prosecution to use an arrested person's pre-Miranda silence as direct evidence of guilt. This article argues that those Circuits are wrong. The article, first, demonstrates the historical antiquity of the Common Law principle that a detained person has the right to stand mute. Though the right was limited by statutory incursion and in tension, at times, with the …

Accounting For Federalism In State Courts - Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained Lawfully By Federal Agents, Robert M. Bloom, Hillary J. Massey

Robert M. Bloom

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court also has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades, for example by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether …

“Intelligence” Searches And Purpose: A Significant Mismatch Between Constitutional Criminal Procedure And The Law Of Intelligence-Gathering, Robert C. Power

Robert C. Power

No abstract provided.

Fair Process And Fair Play: Professionally Responsible Cross-Examination, John F. Nivala

John F. Nivala

No abstract provided.

Driving Through Arkansas? Have Your Dna Sample Ready, Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

Establishing Separate Criminal And Civil Evidence Codes, John J. Capowski

John J. Capowski

Miranda Is Not Enough: A New Justification For Demanding "Strong Corroboration" To A Confession, Boaz Sangero

Prof. Boaz Sangero

Following research conducted in recent years—some of it regarding evidence obtained through DNA testing—no doubt remains that, in reality, innocent persons are convicted of crimes and that, in a significant number of these cases, wrongful convictions are solely based on the out-of-court confessions of accused persons obtained by police interrogators.This Article discusses existing law regarding confessions and convictions based on confessions. While this body of law deals in a relatively satisfactory manner with the fear that the confession is involuntary (primarily, through Miranda rules), unfortunately, it does not adequately address the serious fear of false confessions.The Article is designed to …

Magistrates’ Examinations, Police Interrogations, And Miranda—Like Warnings In The Nineteenth Century, Wesley M. Oliver

Wesley M Oliver

The New York legislature in the early-nineteenth century began to require interrogators to warn suspects of their right to silence and counsel. The Warren Court, in Miranda v. Arizona, did not invent the language of the warnings; rather, it resurrected the warnings that were no longer given in New York after the latter half of the nineteenth century. The confessions rule, a judicially created rule of evidence much like the modern voluntariness rule, excluded many statements if any threat or inducement was made to the suspect. Courts in the early-nineteenth century, however, were willing to accept confessions notwithstanding an improper …

The Uses Of History In Crawford V. Washington, Frank Herrmann

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

To a striking degree, both the majority and concurring opinions in Crawford v. Washington are replete with references to Anglo-American historical materials, used to support differing conclusions about the application of the Confrontation Clause to testimonial hearsay. This essay sets out Justice Scalia's and Chief Justice Rehnquist's historical arguments and then employs the standards of legal historians to evaluate whether the two opinions use history in a valid manner. The essay concludes that the "history" in Crawford is not that of an historian, but is a "usable past," as conceived by Cass Sunstein and Stephen Griffin.

Sharing Sacred Secrets: Is It (Past) Time For A Dangerous Person Exception To The Clergy-Penitent Privilege?, R. Michael Cassidy

R. Michael Cassidy

In this article, the author discusses the important and previously unexplored topic of whether the law should recognize a future harms exception to the clergy-penitent privilege, similar to that recognized in the area of psychotherapist-patient and attorney-client privileges. After tracing the origins and current application of the clergy-penitent privilege in America, the author discusses how the privilege as currently applied in most states admits of no exceptions, and is unnecessarily expansive in breadth. Using the hypothetical of a homicidal spouse who reveals to his minister an intent to murder his wife, the article compares the ethical and legal duties of …

Protecting Criminal Defendants' Rights When The Government Adduces Scientific Evidence: The Confrontation Clause And Other Alternatives─A Response To Professor Giannelli, James W. Diehm

James W. Diehm