Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Atkins v. Virginia (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Cass Sunstein (1)
- Coercion (1)
-
- Confessions (1)
- Constitutional Criminal Procedure (1)
- Critical Legal Studies (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Due process (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Exclusionary Rule (1)
- Fact Finding (1)
- Hearsay Declarations (1)
- Illegally-Obtained Evidence (1)
- Interrogation (1)
- James v. Illinois (1)
- Jamie Wilson (1)
- McCleskey v. Kemp (1)
- Mental illness (1)
- Oliver Wendell Holmes (1)
- Procedural rights (1)
- Prosecutorial Neglect (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Racial minorities (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Voluntariness (1)
- Walder v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Specific Agreements About Race: A Response To Professor Sunstein, Sheri Johnson
Specific Agreements About Race: A Response To Professor Sunstein, Sheri Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Killing The Non-Willing: Atkins, The Volitionally Incapacitated, And The Death Penalty, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Killing The Non-Willing: Atkins, The Volitionally Incapacitated, And The Death Penalty, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
Jamie Wilson, nineteen years old and severely mentally ill, walked into a school cafeteria and started shooting. Two children died, and Jamie was charged with two counts of capital murder. Because he admitted his guilt, the only issue at his trial was the appropriate punishment. The trial judge assigned to his case, after hearing expert testimony on his mental state, found that mental illness rendered Jamie unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the crime—not impaired by his mental illness in his ability to control his behavior, but unable to control his behavior. …
Punitive Injunctions, Nirej S. Sekhon
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen
James L. Kainen
The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
James L. Kainen
James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …