Criminal Law Commons^™

Proximate Cause In Constitutional Torts: Holding Interrogators Liable For Fifth Amendment Violations At Trial, Joel Flaxman

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues for the approach taken by the Sixth Circuit in McKinley: a proper understanding of the Fifth Amendment requires holding that an officer who coerces a confession that is used at trial to convict a defendant in violation of the right against self-incrimination should face liability for the harm of conviction and imprisonment. Part I examines how the Supreme Court and the circuits have applied the concept of common law proximate causation to constitutional torts and argues that lower courts are wrong to blindly adopt common law rules without reference to the constitutional rights at stake. It …

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, …

Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt

Michigan Law Review

Currently, the circuits are divided on whether comments by co-defendants' counsel on a defendant's silence impair that defendant's fifth amendment rights. Furthermore, among the circuits that regard such commentary as potentially prejudicial, disagreement exists over the proper test for identifying such comments. This Note asserts that the risk of prejudicing a defendant's fifth amendment rights is too great to allow counsel any comment on a defendant's decision to testify or to remain silent.

Part I of this Note examines the historical evolution of the privilege against self-incrimination and the policy goals behind the privilege. The Note argues that prohibiting comments …

Advising A Witness To Exercise His Privilege Against Self-Incrimination When The Adviser's Motive Is To Protect Himself Is An Obstruction Of Justice-Cole V. United States, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, who had perjured himself before a federal grand jury, feared that the testimony of his former employee before the same body would reveal the perjury. Knowing that the employee had previously filed a false affidavit with the McClellan Committee, defendant was able to persuade him to invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. When the former employee later voluntarily made a full disclosure to government agents, defendant was indicted by a second grand jury and convicted of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the administration of justice in violation of section 1503 of the Federal Criminal Code. On appeal to the Court …

Kamisar, Inbau & Arnold: Criminal Justice In Our Time, Theodore Souris

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Criminal Justice in Our Time by Yale Kamisar, Fred E. Inbau, and Thurman Arnold

The Role Of A Trial Jury In Determining The Voluntariness Of A Confession, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has vigorously implemented the principle that criminal prosecution is an investigative, not an inquisitorial, process. Evidence of guilt must be obtained by methods free from physical or psychological coercion. Protections in the Bill of Rights against illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and trial without counsel have been extended to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Safeguards against the admissibility of coerced confessions into evidence have also been instituted. Because a confession practically determines the ultimate question of guilt, the critical standards for· admissibility are frequently challenged on appeal. …

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In State Criminal Proceedings, Frank M. Lacey

Michigan Law Review

In March 1951, defendant, a New York City policeman, was called to testify before a state grand jury investigating the association of city policemen with the criminal element of Kings County. Existing laws required public officers to execute a waiver of immunity to prosecution for matters to which their testimony related, on pain of losing their positions. The defendant signed such a waiver, and shortly thereafter resigned from the police force. He was called before the same grand jury again in December 1952, and on this occasion was asked whether he had ever accepted bribes while a policeman. He refused …