Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
Articles
A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …
Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar
Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson1 intelligently without discussing Miranda whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda's constitutional status has become less and less meaningful. In this chapter I focus on the Court's characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually "coerced" or "compelled" but obtained merely …
Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda
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, …
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
The primary conceptual hurdle confronting the Miranda Court was the "legal reasoning" that any and all police interrogation is unaffected by the privilege against self-incrimination because such interrogation does not involve any kind of judicial process for the taking of testimony; inasmuch as police officers have no legal authority to compel statements of any kind, there is no legal obligation, ran the argument, to which a privilege can apply. See, e.g., the discussion and authorities collected in Kamisar, A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the "New" Fifth Amendment and the Old "Voluntariness" Test, 65 MICH. L. REv. …
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Michigan Law Review
Legal rules of evidence do not, of course, apply before the labor arbitrator. This is not surprising since such rules were developed in connection with jury trials, and do not apply strictly in any tribunal but a jury-court. The whole theory of the arbitration tribunal is that it is composed of experts who repeatedly inquire into a relatively homogeneous kind of cases. Exclusionary rules are hardly required as a precautionary measure. Indeed, as the late Harry Shulman said in his classic Oliver Wendell Holmes lecture at Harvard in 1955, "The more serious danger is not that the arbitrator will hear …
Scientific Investigation And Defendants' Rights, B. J. George Jr.
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 …
Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.
Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.
The Investigation Of Corporate Monopolies, Edson R. Sunderland
The Investigation Of Corporate Monopolies, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently given a clear and brief statement of its views respecting the right of a corporation officer to refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may subject the corporation to a criminal prosecution. Hale v. Henkel, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370. Hale was summoned before a grand jury in a proceeding under the Sherman anti-trust act, and upon being interrogated respecting certain transactions of the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., of which he was Secretary and Treasurer, refused to answer, on the ground that the Federal immunity law was not broad …