Digital Commons Network^™

Apprendi And Federalism, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Since the emergence of the Apprendi majority and its newly minted (and evolving) constitutional limits on criminal punishment, many commentators have begun to address its implications for the horizontal relations between the branches of government — between legislators and courts, between judges and juries, and between judges and prosecutors. Less widely addressed, though equally (if not more) important, has been the Apprendi doctrine’s implications for vertical relations, particularly federalism.

This essay seeks to begin to fill that lacuna in the literature. Part I explains how Apprendi undermines principles of federalism, a curious tension because several of Apprendi’s strongest defenders, particularly …

Resorting To External Norms And Principles In Constitutional Decision-Making, Alvin L. Goldman

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ambivalence About Treason, George P. Fletcher

Faculty Scholarship

Betrayal and disloyalty are grievous moral wrongs, yet today when the disloyal commit treason we seem reluctant to punish them. John Walker Lindh fought for the Taliban with full knowledge that it was engaged in hostilities against the United States. It should not have been so difficult to prove by two witnesses to the overt act, as the Constitution requires, that he adhered to the enemy giving them aid and comfort. Admittedly, there were legal problems about whether the Taliban as an indirect enemy in an undeclared war could qualify as the enemy in the constitutional sense. But there was …

Postscript: Another Look At Patane And Seibert, The 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Some months after I finished writing an article that, inter alia, discussed the lower court opinions in Patane and Seibert (an article that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journa),1 the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in those cases.2 In Patane, a 5-4 majority held admissible a Glock pistol located as a result of a failure to comply with Miranda. In Seibert, a 5-4 majority agreed with the state court that a "second confession," one obtained after the police had deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique designed to undermine the Miranda warnings, was inadmissible. 3 In Patane, Justice …

The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …

Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception. This article argues that this framework should be abandoned. The clause should not be regarded …

Face To Face With The Right Of Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

This article is an edited excerpt from the amicus curiae brief filed in Crawford v. Washington, heard before the United States Supreme Court on November 10, 2003. Prof. Friedman wrote the brief for the Court.

Introduction, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Brown v. Board of Education [1] is the seminal case of the Twentieth Century. Mere mention of the case can start discussion on any number of topics, all important and all that relate to, or were importantly affected by, Brown. Some of those discussions relate to the immediate subject of Brown: Was state-imposed racially segregated public education a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? What is the nature of race relations in America? How close are we to achieving a racially just society? How fair is our system of public education? Others might focus on Brown for its impact on …

Guilty Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights Of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators routinely results in injury to reputations,lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office. Yet, because these individuals are not parties to a criminal trial, they have neither the right to present evidence nor the opportunity to clear their names. Thus, Professor Robbins argues that the practice violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” While prosecutors may offer many justifications to support the practice of naming unindicted co-conspirators, these reasons …

Countermajoritarian Hero Or Zero - Rethinking The Warren Court's Role In The Criminal Procedure Revolution, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

With last fall marking the fiftieth anniversary of Earl Warren's appointment as Chief Justice, enough time has passed to place the criminal procedure revolution in proper historical perspective and rethink the Court's role there as countermajoritarian hero. In the discussion that follows, I aim to do that by examining five of the revolution's most celebrated decisions: Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Katz v. United States, and Terry v. Ohio. In none of these cases, I argue, did the Supreme Court act in a manner truly deserving of its countermajoritarian image. To be clear, I do not …

Tribute To Yale Kamisar, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Michigan Law Review

When the editors of this issue told me of Professor Yale Kamisar's decision to retire from full-time teaching after a near half century of law faculty service, two thoughts came immediately to mind. First, I thought of the large loss to Michigan students unable to attend his classes and to faculty colleagues at Ann Arbor unable routinely to engage his bright mind. Second, I thought it altogether right for the Michigan Law Review to publish an issue honoring one of the Law School's most prized professors. When invited to write a tribute, I could not resist saying yes.

Publications By Professor Yale Kamisar, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A bibliography of publications by Yale Kamisar.

Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

It is no exaggeration to say that Yale Kamisar was present at the creation of Miranda v. Arizona. To be sure, the seeds of Miranda had been sown in earlier cases, particularly Escobedo v. Illinois, but Escobedo was a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case. Professor Kamisar first saw the potential for extending the theory of Escob edo to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Escob edo theorized that a healthy criminal justice system requires that the accused know their rights and are encouraged to exercise them. The Escobedo Court read history to teach that no system …

Due Process Denied: Judicial Coercion In The Plea Bargaining Process, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Jurisprudential Revolution: Unlocking Human Potential In Grutter And Lawrence, Wilson Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Critical Stage": Extending The Right To Counsel To The Motion For New Trial Phase, Jonathan G. Neal

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Justice Under The Law: Why Iolta Programs Do Not Violate The First Amendment, Hillary A. Webber

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of The Petitioner, Richard W. Garnett, Joshua L. Dratel, Richard A. Greenberg

Court Briefs

No. 03-44
Basim Omar Sabri v. United States of America

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

From the Summary of the Argument

This case considers the constitutional validity of a relatively novel but increasingly employed federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, that has engendered fierce debate about some of the "oldest questions" of constitutional law. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 149 (1992) ("[t]he constitutional question is as old as the Constitution: It consists of discerning the proper division of authority between the Federal Government and …

A Room Of One's Own: Morality And Sexual Privacy After Lawrence V. Texas, Marybeth Herald

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

National Identity Cards: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Issues, Daniel J. Steinbock

ExpressO

In the past two years there have been serious calls for a national identity system whose centerpiece would be some form of national identity card. Such a system is seen mainly as a tool against terrorists, but also as a useful response to illegal immigration, identity theft, and electoral fraud. Both proponents and opponents have noted the potential constitutional problems of such an identity system, but as yet there has been no published legal analysis of these questions. This article aims to fill that gap by analyzing the Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues in two major features of any likely …

Holistic Interpretation, Comparative Constitutionalism, And Fiss-Ian Freedoms, Vicki C. Jackson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Catch A Killer: Roadblocks And The Fourth Amendment, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

The Exclusion Of Felons From Jury Service, Brian C. Kalt

American University Law Review

The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men.

The parallel issue of felon disenfranchisement has drawn considerable scholarly attention, despite its lower, declining, and less racially charged numbers. The racial composition of juries has been widely discussed in the literature as well. By contrast, felon jury service has been almost entirely ignored, despite a mass of legislation and appellate litigation, and despite glaring racial disparities.

One …

Toward A Unifying Theory Of The Separation Of Powers, Bruce G. Peabody, John D. Nugent

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The (Un)Favorable Judgment Of History: Deportation Hearings, The Palmer Raids, And The Meaning Of History, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

As Americans respond to the events of September 11, 2001, they are being forced to contemplate their place in American history-past, present, and future. This has become particularly stark in the fight over secret deportation hearings. Following September 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the deportation hearings of "special interest" aliens would be closed to the public. Applying Richmond Newspapers's two-pronged logic-and-experience test, the Third and Sixth Circuits subsequently split over the constitutionality of the blanket closure. At the heart of their disagreement was the scarce history of deportation hearings and whether such hearings had been closed in the …

The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained And Its Future Predicted, Ronald J. Allen

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Canadian Fundamental Justice And American Due Process: Two Models For A Guarantee Of Basic Adjudicative Fairness, David M. Siegel

ExpressO

This paper traces how the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States have each used the basic guarantee of adjudicative fairness in their respective constitutions to effect revolutions in their countries’ criminal justice systems, through two different jurisprudential models for this development. It identifies a relationship between two core constitutional structures, the basic guarantee and enumerated rights, and shows how this relationship can affect the degree to which entrenched constitutional rights actually protect individuals. It explains that the different models for the relationship between the basic guarantee and enumerated rights adopted in Canada and the United States, an “expansive …

The Coherence Of Orthodox Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Samuel C. Rickless

ExpressO

In the legal academy it is widely believed that the U.S. Supreme Court's orthodox (post-Katz, pre-Houghton) fourth amendment jurisprudence is theoretically incoherent. In particular, the Court has been criticized (on doctrinal and textual grounds) for accepting (i) Justice Harlan's definition of a "search" as an infringement of a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, (ii) the Warrant Requirement and Probable Cause Requirement (according to which searches and seizures without a warrant or probable cause are presumptively unreasonable), and (iii) the Exclusionary Rule (according to which any evidence obtained in violation of a person’s fourth …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of The Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Joshua L. Dratel, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 03-44
Basim Omar Sabri v. United States of America

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

From the Statement of the Case

The relevant facts of this case, as well as its procedural history, are set out clearly and completely in Mr. Sabri' s Petition, in the Appendix to that Petition, and in the opinions of the courts below. See United States v. Sabri, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Minn. 2002), rev 'd, 326 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2003). For purposes of this amicus curiae …

Garrity V. New Jersey And Its Progeny: How Lower Courts Are Weakening The Strong Constitutional Protections Afforded Police Officers, Donald Wm. Driscoll

Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal

No abstract provided.