Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano

Michigan Law Review

The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …

American Indians, Crime, And The Law, Kevin K. Washburn

Michigan Law Review

This Article evaluates the federal Indian country criminal justice regime, not against norms of Indian law and policy, but against those of criminal law and policy. Specifically, this Article evaluates the federal constitutional norms that lie at the heart of American criminal justice and that are designed to ensure the legitimacy of federal criminal trials. Toward that end, Part I presents a critical description of key facets of the federal Indian country criminal justice system. Part II begins the critical evaluation by evaluating a key institutional player in the federal system, the federal prosecutor. It highlights the handicaps faced by …

Psychology, Factfinding, And Entrapment, Kevin A. Smith

Michigan Law Review

Through the entrapment defense, the law acknowledges that criminal behavior is not always the result of a culpable mind, but is sometimes the result of an interaction between the individual and his environment. By limiting the amount of pressure and temptation that undercover agents may bring to bear on a target, the defense recognizes that the ordinary, law-abiding citizen can be persuaded, cajoled, or intimidated into criminal activity that, he would never consider absent law-enforcement interference. Appropriate application of the defense requires, however, that courts be able to accurately separate the truly wicked from the merely weak-willed, and offensively coercive …

Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick

Michigan Law Review

As presently construed, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. The states and the federal government may punish the commission of certain crimes with death, so long as the extreme penalty is not imposed on a mandatory basis and so long as the procedures used in imposing a death sentence meet constitutional scrutiny.

A demonstration that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenge in the manner described in a single case probably would be insufficient to support a constitutional challenge in the federal courts and in the vast majority of state courts. In these courts a prosecutor's use of the …

Joint Trials Of Defendants In Criminal Cases: An Analysis Of Efficiencies And Prejudices, Robert O. Dawson

Michigan Law Review

Legislatures and courts, in weighing the relative advantages of joint and separate trials, have unreasonably struck a balance in favor of joint trials. The strongest justification traditionally offered for joint trials is efficiency. This Article shows that courts have greatly exaggerated the supposed efficiencies of joint trials while grossly underestimating the impediments joint trials pose to fair and accurate determinations of individual guilt or innocence. The propriety of joint trials is more than a question of efficiencies. Joint trials usually, although not always, help the prosecutor to get convictions, and thereby modify the balance of advantage in criminal trials. Disputes …

American Bar Association Project On Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice: Standards Relating To Trial By Jury (Approved Draft), Melvin M. Belli

Michigan Law Review

A Review of American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to Trial by Jury (Approved Draft). Recommended by the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial

Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal - Reversal Of Conviction Despite Guilt As Rebuke To The Administration Of Justice, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In a prosecution for murder the prosecuting attorney, in his opening address, improperly stated that the evidence would show that both defendants had previous records for burglary and robbery, had served time in penitentiaries, and that the state would ask that the two men be hanged on the basis of this and other evidence. No objection or move for a mistrial was made at the time by the defendants, nor was the court requested to instruct the jury to disregard the remarks. Defendants were unquestionably guilty of murder, the evidence for the state being conclusive, while that of the defendants …

Criminal Law And Procedure - Instruction As To The Reasonable Doubt Of Each Juror

Michigan Law Review

The accused in a criminal prosecution requested, in addition to a general charge on reasonable doubt, an instruction stating, "The court instructs the jury that if after the consideration of the whole case, any juror entertains a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt it is the duty of such juror so entertaining such doubt, not to vote for a verdict of guilty, or be influenced in so voting for the single reason that a majority of the jury might be in favor of a verdict of guilty:" This instruction was refused and the defendant appealed from his conviction. Held, …

Crimes--Burden Of Proving Alibi And Self-Defense

Michigan Law Review

The defendant, indicted for murder, requested a charge that, if the evidence as to self-defense raised in the minds of the jurors a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, they should acquit him. Held, the trial court properly refused to· give the instruction. The burden was on the defendant to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Troup (Pa. 1931) 153 Atl. 337.

Crimes-Speedy Trial-Justification For Delay

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was convicted under a state prohibition statute. The information was filed on June 7, 1929, and no further proceedings were taken against him for more than sixty days thereafter. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that he had not had a speedy trial. No jury was on duty during the months of July, August, and the early part of September. Held, that the constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial was not infringed by such delay. State v. Vukich (Wash. 1930) 290 Pac. 992.