Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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 …

Some Effects Of Identity-Based Social Movements On Constitutional Law In The Twentieth Century, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Michigan Law Review

What motivated big changes in constitutional law doctrine during the twentieth century? Rarely did important constitutional doctrine or theory change because of formal amendments to the document's text, and rarer still because scholars or judges "discovered" new information about the Constitution's original meaning. Precedent and common law reasoning were the mechanisms by which changes occurred rather than their driving force. My thesis is that most twentieth century changes in the constitutional protection of individual rights were driven by or in response to the great identity-based social movements ("IBSMs") of the twentieth century. Race, sex, and sexual orientation were markers of …

When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Bill of Rights. Imagine Chief Justice John Marshall sitting in the dim, narrow Supreme Court chambers, pondering the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr was charged with treason for planning to invade the Louisiana Territory and create a separate government there. To help prepare his defense, Burr wanted to see a letter written by General James Wilkinson to President Jefferson. In ruling on Burr's motion to compel disclosure, Marshall departed from the literal language of the Sixth Amendment - …

Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …

Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid

Michigan Law Review

Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …

Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein

Michigan Law Review

The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …

Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

Criminal Procedure, Justice, Ethics, And Zeal, Darryl K. Brown

Michigan Law Review

William Stuntz's recent article, The Uneasy Relationship Between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice, offers a series of thoughtful observations on the reasons that criminal procedure doctrines designed to protect defendants have done so little to improve the criminal justice system. Stuntz's article describes the unintended effects of attempts by the United States Supreme Court to improve criminal justice by closely regulating criminal procedure. That procedural focus has had perverse effects because, in a dynamic criminal justice system, other institutional players have responded to procedural rules in ways that undermine appellate courts' goals. Specifically, legislatures have reacted by expanding substantive criminal …

Race, Rights, And Remedies In Criminal Adjudication, Pamela S. Karlan

Michigan Law Review

Once upon a time, back before the Warren Court, criminal procedure and racial justice were adjacent hinterlands in constitutional law's empire. In 1954, the fifth edition of Dowling's constitutional law casebook contained one chapter on "procedural due process" in which six of the eight cases were about criminal justice, and three of those - Powell v. Alabama, Moore v. Dempsey, and Bailey v. Alabama - were as much about race as they were about crime. A few pages later, two slender chapters on the "national protection of civil rights" and "equal protection of the laws" contained seven and nine decisions, …

Criminal Law-Confessions-Admission Of Illegally Obtained Confession In State Criminal Prosecution Is Harmless Error Not Requiring Reversal Of Conviction--People V. Jacobson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant voluntarily admitted that he had murdered his daughter to a social worker, two ambulance attendants, and three police officers sent to investigate the incident. He continued to declare his guilt to these officers after his arrest, on the way to the police station, and at the police station where he was interrogated without the benefit of counsel although he had not waived his right to counsel. All of the confessions-approximately ten-were admitted in evidence at the defendant's trial over his objection that the two confessions obtained during the interrogation should have been excluded since he had been denied his …

Newman: Conviction: The Determination Of Guilt Or Innocence Without Trial, B. J. George Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial by Donald J. Newman

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 - Right Of Second Offender To Pre-Sentence Hearing Regarding Prior Conviction, John Edward Porter S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Relator was convicted of burglary in 1953 and of voluntary manslaughter in 1954. While passing sentence after the latter conviction, the court declared that it was exercising its discretion under the Habitual Criminal Act by imposing a double penalty on the relator. Neither relator nor his counsel objected to the procedure or demanded a hearing regarding the prior conviction. On petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the lower court, relator admitted the fact of his prior conviction. He asserted, however, that although the habitual criminal statute in terms contains no provision granting alleged second offenders notice …

The Supreme Court - October 1958 Term, Bernard Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court, reads a famous passage by Bryce, "feels the touch of public opinion. Opinion is stronger in America than anywhere else in the world, and judges are only men. To yield a little may be prudent, for the tree that cannot bend to the blast may be broken."

The history of the highest Court bears constant witness to the truth of Bryce's statement. Supreme Court action which has moved too far in one direction has always ultimately provoked an equivalent reaction in the opposite direction. Even an institution as august as the high tribunal cannot escape the law …

Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Successive State Prosecutions For Same Activity, Robert L. Bombaugh

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner suspected of having robbed five persons on a single occasion. was indicted and tried for the robbery of three of them. His sole defense was alibi and he was acquitted when only one of the five victims identified him as the robber. Petitioner was then tried under an indictment for the robbery of a fourth victim. Petitioner interposed the same defense but was convicted at this second trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed, three justices dissenting. Neither the successive trials nor the failure of the court to …

Scientific Investigation And Defendants' Rights, B. J. George Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Advances in science, medicine and industry have made much of the world a more pleasant place in which to live. In general more men are living a physically more satisfying life in more comfortable surroundings than preceding generations. But with this has come a parallel increase in criminality to the point that the term "crime wave" is heard with increasing frequency. Many crimes are facilitated in their commission by adaption or application of new scientific discoveries by criminal elements. A natural consequence is that already overburdened police departments turn as quickly as is financially possible to new scientific techniques in …

Constitutional Law - Due Process -Knowledge Of The Law Required For Conviction Under Criminal Registration Ordinance, David C. Berg

Michigan Law Review

Defendant-appellant was charged with violation of a Los Angeles municipal ordinance which required all persons convicted of a felony in California, or of a crime committed elsewhere which would have been punishable as a felony in California, subsequent to January 1, 1921, to register with the Chief of Police upon remaining in the city longer than five days, or upon making more than five visits to the city within a thirty-day period. At the time of her arrest, appellant had been a resident of Los Angeles for seven years. Within that period she had been convicted (in Los Angeles) of …

Constitutional Law - Post-Conviction Due Process - Right Of Indigent To Review Of Non-Constitutional Trial Errors, Robert C. Casad S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this comment is to examine a new development. in post-conviction due process: Griffin v. Illinois. This case announces a new principle of constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment based on an almost indistinguishable combination of due process and equal protection elements.

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Use Of Habeas Corpus To Allow Federal Court To Review State Court Jury Determination Of Voluntariness Of Confession, Herbert R. Brown S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The prisoner had been convicted of murder in the state court. He brought a habeas corpus proceeding in federal district court to secure his release from custody on the ground that the conviction was based on a confession which was obtained by physical violence. The confession had been submitted to the jury, which was instructed to consider it only if it found that it was not obtained by duress or fear produced by threats. The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, held, affirmed. The district court could determine the facts of the case for itself. …

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 …

Criminal Procedure - Availablity Of Federal Court Injunction To Prevent Federal Officer From Testifying In State Court As To Illegally-Obtained Evidence, Edward C. Hanpeter

Michigan Law Review

Prosecution of petitioner in federal court for the unlawful acquisition of marihuana failed when the court granted petitioner's motion to suppress the marihuana as evidence because it was obtained by a search based on an invalid search warrant. The federal officer who had seized the marihuana then swore to a complaint before a state judge, and a warrant for petitioner's arrest for violation of state law issued. While awaiting trial, petitioner filed a motion in federal district court to enjoin the federal officer from testifying in the state court. The district court denied the injunction, and the court of appeals …

Constitutional Law - Due Process - State Procedure For Attacking The Composition Of Grand Juries, Robert E. Hammell

Michigan Law Review

Defendant Michel, a Negro, was indicted by a grand jury for rape on February 19, 1953. On March 2, the same day that the term of the grand jury expired, he was arraigned and counsel was appointed. One week (five judicial days) later, motion was made to quash the indictment on grounds of discrimination against Negroes in impaneling the grand jury. The trial court ruled that the objection had been waived because Louisiana law requires that it be raised within three judicial days after the expiration of the term of the grand jury. The defendant was convicted, and the Louisiana …

Constitutional Law - Public Trial In Criminal Cases, Carl S. Krueger S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The criminal trial has been traditionally open to the public in Anglo-Saxon procedure, as it was in Roman and other civilized societies of an earlier time. The public trial of today, however, has been subjected to considerable criticism on the ground that there is a tendency for criminal trials to degenerate into public spectacles, frequently interrupting the orderly procedure of justice, and not infrequently actually prejudicing the accused. If no useful purpose is served by the presence of the idle public during the deadly serious determination of guilt or innocence, should not the judge, subject to the right of admittance …

Constitutional Law-Due Process-Burden Of Proving Insanity As Defense To Crime, Lois H. Hambro S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after having pleaded insanity as a defense to the charge. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, alleging that the Oregon statute, which required an accused pleading insanity to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it placed on him the burden of proving his inability to premeditate and intend the criminal act. The defendant relied in part on the fact that Oregon is the only state requiring insanity to be proved ''beyond a reasonable doubt," while other states require at most that …