Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (2)
- Caesar (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
-
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Derecho Procesal Civil (1)
- England (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- History (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Natural Law (1)
- Philip Kurland (1)
- Police (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- United States (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Voluntary nature (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Nociones Generales De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Nociones Generales De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
No abstract provided.
Proof By Confession, O. John Rogge
Professor Kurland, The Supreme Court And Political Science, Donald P. Kommers
Professor Kurland, The Supreme Court And Political Science, Donald P. Kommers
Journal Articles
IN A SYMPOSIUM held at the Notre Dame Law School on February 29, 1964, on several constitutional amendments designed to limit the power of the Supreme Court, Professor Philip B. Kurland of the University of Chicago Law School read a terse and delightfully witty paper in which he compared the Supreme Court to Caesar, sieged on the one side by the modem forces of Brutus, and championed on the other side by the contemporary Mark Antonys. There was no doubt in Professor Kurland's mind that the efforts of conspirators like the Council of State Governments, not to mention its less …
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
Articles
F the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer3 are any indication, Miranda v. Arizona' has evoked much anger and spread much sorrow among judges, lawyers and professors. In the months and years ahead, such reaction is likely to be translated into microscopic analyses and relentless, probing criticism of the majority opinion. During this period of agonizing appraisal and reappraisal, I think it important that various assumptions and assertions in the dissenting opinions do not escape attention.