Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …

The Truth About Massiah, James J. Tomkovicz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

First, the Article will summarize the Justice Department's discussion of the Massiah right to counsel and the exclusion of evidence under Massiah. Next, it will evaluate the nature of the Report and the character of legal scholarship. Finally, it will explore the substantive debate over Massiah. In that section, the Article will point out the matters on which the DOJ and I agree, will attempt to frame the fundamental questions raised by the Massiah doctrine, and will investigate potential sources of answers to those constitutional questions. Ultimately, it will provide the answers that I prefer, explaining the premises …

Introduction - The Changed And Changing World Of Constitutional Criminal Procedure: The Contribution Of The Department Of Justice's Office Of Legal Policy, Joseph D. Grano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The world of constitutional criminal procedure is changing slowly. Repudiating much of the thinking that led to the existing world, the changes are being driven by arguments that share common ground with those expressed in the Office of Legal Policy Reports. The unanswered question is whether tomorrow's changes will mirror the logical ramifications of this new way of thinking. What we cannot know today, as we ponder these Reports, is whether twenty years hence, as a new generation of law students begin to study our endeavors, the mistakes of the 1960s will be little more than "cold history." Whatever our …

Double Jeopardy And G0vernment Appeals Of Acquittals, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As part of a continuing series of papers on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investigation and adjudication, the Office of Legal Policy has carried out a review of the law governing double jeopardy prohibitions on federal government appeals of criminal acquittals. These prohibitions undermine the search for truth in criminal adjudication by allowing some wrongly acquitted, culpable individuals to go unpunished. The results of our review are set out in this Report.

The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under The Massiah Line Of Cases, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The sixth amendment guarantees to the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In Massiah v. United States, the Supreme Court held this right was violated when there was used against the defendant at trial evidence of incriminating statements deliberately elicited from him by an informant after he had been indicted and in the absence of counsel. In effect, this decision and others that 'followed have created a new constitutional right not to be questioned about pending charges prior to trial except in the presence of an attorney.

One consequence …

Adverse Inferences From Silence, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Report, the eighth in the Truth in Criminal Justice series, assesses the rules relating to the evidentiary consideration of the defendant's silence. Its general conclusion is that the existing restrictive rules in this area are unjustified impediments to the search for truth. The notion that the fifth amendment's prohibition of compelling a person in a criminal case to be a witness against himself bars drawing adverse inferences from the defendant's silence is not well-founded. In practical effect, these rules impede the conviction of the guilty by barring consideration of an aspect of the defendant's conduct-his failure to respond to …