Digital Commons Network^™

The Citizen On Trial: The New Confession Rules, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Commenting on why it has taken the United States so long to apply "the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel to the proceedings in the stationhouse as well as to those in the courtroom" - as the Supreme Court did in Miranda v. Arizona - this author notes that, "To a large extent this is so because here, as elsewhere, there has been a wide gap between the principles to which we aspire and the practices we actually employ."

Equal Protection For The Illegitimate, Harry D. Krause

Michigan Law Review

In our time the general constitutional phrase promising equal protection has become specific law. It has been used to invalidate many state statutes which discriminated on the basis of race or other arbitrary criteria. Definite rules have been developed for this process of invalidation. These rules will be applied below to state and federal legislation that favors the legitimate child and discriminates against the illegitimate in matters of inheritance rights, rights of support, rights of name and custody, and social welfare. The question that will be asked is whether state and federal legislation may constitutionally discriminate between children on the …

Newman: Conviction: The Determination Of Guilt Or Innocence Without Trial, B. J. George Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial by Donald J. Newman

Miranda--Some History, Some Observations, And Some Questions, Karl P. Warden

Vanderbilt Law Review

At this writing Miranda v. Arizona' is less than four months old. Although its place in the annals of leading constitutional decisions is assured, its meaning for, and influence upon, the criminal law process in the United States is not at all certain. It will require years of data accumulation and analysis to determine how profound an effect it will have and to evaluate that effect in terms of social impact. It is too soon to know whether the Miranda case has started a new revolution in the administration of criminal justice or has merely ended an old one. Is …

Habeas Corpus--Custody And Release From Custody Requirements Of Habeas Corpus--Viability Of Mcnally V. Hill In The Moden Context, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus be "in custody." As a corollary of the "custody" requirement, the common law tradition required that the effect of the writ must be the petitioner's "release from custody.'' Because the United States Constitution and the federal habeas corpus statutes guarantee the availability of the writ in general terms, it is to the common law that the courts have consistently turned for the definition of these terms and for the restrictive effect of these requirements on the availability of the writ …

Constitutional And Related Public Law Issues In The 1965 Term Of The Supreme Court

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Cases And Materials On Constitutional Law, Frank R. Strong

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

The Criminal Justice Act Of 1964: A Critique, Robert P. Wolf

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Federal Habeas Corpus By State Prisoners, J. Deweese Carter

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Linkletter, Shott, And The Retroactivity Problem In Escobedo, J. Alan Galbraith

Michigan Law Review

Prior to the 1964 Supreme Court Term, decisions promulgating new constitutional rules were applied retroactively as a matter of course to final convictions. While dissents occasionally criticized the Court's failure to discuss the retroactive impact of a new constitutional rule, the potential effect upon final convictions of any single rule was not sufficiently acute to justify a departure from the normal grant of retroactivity. But the Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio; which abruptly overturned Wolf v. Colorado and brought into doubt final state convictions resting upon illegally seized evidence admitted in reliance upon Wolf, caused courts and …

The Equal Protection Clause And Imprisonment Of The Indigent For Nonpayment Of Fines, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The practice of imprisonment for failure to pay a fine levied for a criminal violation originated in twelfth-century England; its subsequent unanimous acceptance in the United States is manifested in the provisions in the statutes of every state and of the federal government authorizing imprisonment for nonpayment of fines. A few states not only commit the defendant to jail for nonpayment of the fine, but impose hard labor as well. Some states, however, have mitigated to a degree the harshness of the practice. For example, Arizona restricts the total period of confinement for the crime and the default of the …

Right To Counsel: A Perspective, Alan Macdonald, Gus James Ii

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proof By Confession, O. John Rogge

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Rights Of Privacy - "A Sizable Hunk Of Liberty", Frank R. Goldstein

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Bar Association View, Robert L. Trescher

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Gideon's Trumpet: Taps For An Antiquated System? A Proposal For Kentucky, Daniel G. Grove

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What Constitutes Prejudicial Publicity In Pending Cases, James R. Richardson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

A Newspaperman's View, Fred Graham

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A Radio And Television Newsman's View, William B. Monroe

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A Judicial View, William F. Smith

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law--The Widening Scope Of State Habeas Corpus Relief, Lester Clay Hess Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kamisar, Inbau & Arnold: Criminal Justice In Our Time, Theodore Souris

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Criminal Justice in Our Time by Yale Kamisar, Fred E. Inbau, and Thurman Arnold

Parolee Not Protected Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures By His Parole Officer, Roger B. Dworkin

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Book Review, Ira Michael Heyman, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Role Of A Trial Jury In Determining The Voluntariness Of A Confession, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has vigorously implemented the principle that criminal prosecution is an investigative, not an inquisitorial, process. Evidence of guilt must be obtained by methods free from physical or psychological coercion. Protections in the Bill of Rights against illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and trial without counsel have been extended to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Safeguards against the admissibility of coerced confessions into evidence have also been instituted. Because a confession practically determines the ultimate question of guilt, the critical standards for· admissibility are frequently challenged on appeal. …

Executive And Judicial Banishment Compared

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Reviews, Robert G. Dixon Jr., Russell J. Weintraub, Henry G. Manne, Micheal H. Cardozo, Clarence J. Morrow, W. Paul Gormley, Carl E. B. Mckenry Jr.

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Federal Criminal Procedure-Right To Counsel Under Section 2255 Of The Judicial Code, Gerald J. Laba

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner, seeking to attack a conviction for illegal possession of narcotics, was granted leave to sue in form a pauperis under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, but his request that counsel be appointed for him was denied. Petitioner's section 2255 motion to vacate judgment was denied. Petitioner then entered a second section 2255 petition alleging basically the same errors but adding that the court had erred in not appointing counsel for his first petition. The second motion was denied without a hearing on the ground that it was "the second or successive motion for similar relief .... " Petitioner appealed in …

Constitutional Law - Right To Counsel, Frank A. Mysliwiec

Duquesne Law Review

Where an investigation has begun to focus upon a particular suspect, whose request for counsel has been denied and who has not received a warning as to his right to remain silent, he has been deprived of his rights under the sixth amendment.

Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 84 Sup. Ct. 1758 (1964).