Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Law reform (4)
- Organized Crime Control Act (4)
- Organized crime (4)
- Testimony (3)
- Witnesses (3)
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Arrests (1)
- Depositions (1)
- Excobedo v. Illinois (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Harmless error (1)
- Michigan (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- People v. Terry (1)
- Police (1)
- Probable cause (1)
- Search warrants (1)
- Searches (1)
- Seizures (1)
- Self-incrimination (1)
- Stop and frisk (1)
- Terry v. Ohio (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review
Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …
Title Iii - Recalcitrant Witnesses, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum
Title Iii - Recalcitrant Witnesses, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This title represents a congressional attempt to codify the court-developed civil contempt practice. When a witness is granted immunity and still refuses to answer the question presented to him he can be ordered by a court to answer the specific question. Upon his continued refusal, a court can have him confined summarily until he complies with such order, or until he is no longer able to comply. Such confinement is not intended to be punitive in nature, but rather to coerce compliance with the court's order by imposing imprisonment as an alternative to answering the question. The witness will be …
Title Iv - False Declarations, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum
Title Iv - False Declarations, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Title IV was designed to facilitate the bringing of federal perjury prosecutions, thereby strengthening the deterrent value of the perjury penalties and acting as a greater incentive for truthful testimony. It establishes a new false declarations statute applicable to court and grand jury proceedings, with maximum penalty slightly increased over that allowable under the previously controlling perjury statute.
Title Vi - Depositions, Peter A. Kelly
Title Vi - Depositions, Peter A. Kelly
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Title VI expands Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit the Government to depose its witnesses in certain limited classes of cases. Previously only the defendant had been accorded this right. Upon the motion of either party at any time after a criminal indictment or information has been filed, the court may order that the testimony of the party's witnesses be taken by deposition if "due to exceptional circumstances it is in the interest of justice" that such testimony be taken and preserved. Such exceptional circumstances were intended by Congress to include the existence of a …
Title Vii - Litigation Concerning Sources Of Evidence, Peter A. Kelly
Title Vii - Litigation Concerning Sources Of Evidence, Peter A. Kelly
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
There are two operative provisions of title VII, both of which mitigate previous judicially imposed restrictions on governmental collection and presentation of evidence in "any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States.” The first purports to set aside the Supreme Court's holding in the 1968 case of Alderman v. United States, in which the Court held that, in cases involving unlawful electronic surveillance, the government must make full disclosure to the defendant of all records in its possession which contain any of …
Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel
Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
My primary area of concentration today is the search made without a warrant. Studies indicate that 95 percent or more of all searches are without warrants. It is quite understandable, then, that most of the search-and-seizure litigation concerns the validity of searches without warrants.