Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (123)
- University of Michigan Law School (76)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (65)
- William & Mary Law School (49)
- Columbia Law School (45)
-
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (44)
- University of Richmond (42)
- American University Washington College of Law (37)
- Seattle University School of Law (35)
- UIC School of Law (31)
- BLR (29)
- Fordham Law School (26)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (26)
- Boston University School of Law (25)
- University of Kentucky (25)
- Brooklyn Law School (24)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (24)
- University of Washington School of Law (24)
- St. John's University School of Law (22)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (22)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (22)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (20)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (20)
- University of Colorado Law School (20)
- Southern Methodist University (19)
- University of Maine School of Law (19)
- Duke Law (18)
- Georgia State University College of Law (18)
- Roger Williams University (18)
- University of Georgia School of Law (18)
- Keyword
-
- Criminal law (98)
- Criminal procedure (96)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (65)
- Criminal justice (59)
- Police (51)
-
- Sentencing (51)
- Fourth Amendment (46)
- Criminal Procedure (43)
- Evidence (39)
- Fifth Amendment (39)
- Incarceration (39)
- Bail (38)
- Criminal Law (36)
- Recidivism (32)
- Miranda v. Arizona (31)
- Prison (30)
- Criminal Justice (28)
- Prosecutors (28)
- Due process (27)
- Mass incarceration (27)
- Privacy (27)
- Habeas corpus (26)
- United States Supreme Court (26)
- Miranda (25)
- Search (25)
- Constitutional Law (23)
- Law enforcement (23)
- Criminal justice reform (22)
- Policing (22)
- Race (22)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (162)
- Cardozo Law Review (53)
- Articles (44)
- Michigan Law Review (40)
- Public Interest Law Reporter (34)
-
- Faculty Publications (32)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (31)
- ExpressO (28)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (26)
- University of Richmond Law Review (26)
- Seattle University Law Review (25)
- UIC Law Review (24)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (22)
- Maine Law Review (19)
- Publications (19)
- Touro Law Review (19)
- Kentucky Law Journal (18)
- Scholarly Articles (18)
- Fordham Law Review (17)
- Mercer Law Review (16)
- All Faculty Scholarship (15)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (15)
- Scholarly Works (15)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (15)
- Georgia State University Law Review (13)
- Washington Law Review (13)
- William & Mary Law Review (13)
- San Diego Law Review (12)
- West Virginia Law Review (12)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (12)
- Publication Type
Articles 1321 - 1350 of 1536
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Disarming Canadians, And Arming Them With Tolerance: Banning Firearms And Minimum Sentences To Control Violent Crime--An Essay On An Apparent Contradiction, Helene Dumont
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In an article published in French in 1997, the author offered reflections on feminism and criminal law that would allow for a better control of violent crime, without Parliament having to resort to excessively severe sentences. In this respect, she argued that there was no contradiction in supporting the radical ban of firearms in Canada, while opposing a minimum sentence of four years under the Firearms Act, which currently affects approximately ten serious Criminal Code offences. After setting out her position in favour of the "disarmament" of Canadians, the author argued that minimum sentences of four years were unconstitutional. Such …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Voluntariness With A Vengeance: Miranda And A Modern Alternative, Jonathan B. Zeitlin
Voluntariness With A Vengeance: Miranda And A Modern Alternative, Jonathan B. Zeitlin
St. Thomas Law Review
One of the most famous opinions in American jurisprudence is that of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Court's prophylactic rule in Miranda has been followed in both state and federal courts with little derogation for over thirty years. On February 8, 1999, in Dickerson v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ignored Miranda, turning instead to 18 U.S.C. § 3501, a relatively obscure federal statute enacted in 1968 in response to the Court's decision in Miranda. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral …
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin
An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin
Michigan Journal of International Law
This article takes a comparative and empirical look at two of the most significant methods of police investigation: searches for and seizures of tangible evidence and interrogation of suspects. It first compares American doctrine regulating these investigative tools with the analogous rules predominant in Europe. It then discusses research on the American system that sheds light on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two regulatory regimes.
Questioning The Rights Of Juvenile Prisoners During Interrogation , Adam Mizock
Questioning The Rights Of Juvenile Prisoners During Interrogation , Adam Mizock
Cleveland State Law Review
Part I of this Note will review a recent Colorado case involving the interrogation of a juvenile prisoner and the application of the additional-restraint factors within a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Part II will analyze how the decision in the Colorado case and the additional-restraint factors comport with the meaning of "custody" as set forth in U.S. courts' jurisprudence on custodial interrogations. Part III will propose that juvenile prisoners should be presumed in custody for Miranda purposes absent exceptional circumstances. It then will present the justification for this presumption, including a discussion of the solicitude normally provided to juveniles in the criminal …
Asymmetry, Fairness, & Criminal Trials, Stephen E. Hessler
Asymmetry, Fairness, & Criminal Trials, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Rules of criminal procedure, like all rules of legal procedure, exist to advance the goals of the corresponding substantive law. To ask whether American criminal justice - pursued through the operation of these procedural rules - is fair is to engage in a debate that has persisted since the Founding. More recently, the early twentieth century witnessed a revolution against the procedural formalism of preceding decades. Whether justified or not, the perception flourished that the legal system's dogmatic adherence to process allowed many criminals to escape punishment, and endangered society. The public statements of the era's most prominent jurists were …
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
Articles
Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.
It’S All About What You Know: The Specific Intent Standard Should Govern "Knowing" Violations Of The Clean Water Act, Randall S. Abate, Dayna E. Mancuso
It’S All About What You Know: The Specific Intent Standard Should Govern "Knowing" Violations Of The Clean Water Act, Randall S. Abate, Dayna E. Mancuso
Journal Publications
Part I of this Article examines the historical and conceptual foundations of the specific intent standard as applied both outside and within the environmental law context. Part II addresses the historical and conceptual foundations of the general intent standard, also outside and within the environmental law context. Part III reviews the history of the conflict between application of the specific intent and general intent standards in prosecutions for knowing violations of the Clean Water Act. Part IV presents arguments that support application of the specific intent standard to knowing violation cases under section 309(c)(2)(A) of the CWA. Part V analyzes …
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Over the years, Miranda v. Arizona1 has been criticized both for going too far2 and for not going far enough.3 Nevertheless, on the basis of talks with many criminal procedure professors in the sixteen months between the time a panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld a statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501) purporting to "overrule" Miranda and a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court overturned that ruling in the case of Dickerson v. United States,4 I am convinced that most criminal procedure professors wanted the Supreme Court to do what it did-"reaffirm" Miranda. This is not surprising. As Professor Grano once …
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Publications
No abstract provided.
Cooley Innocence Project Kick-Off, Barry Scheck
Cooley Innocence Project Kick-Off, Barry Scheck
Articles
The Innocence Project, through the use of DNA testing, has successfully exonerated numerous wrongfully convicted individuals, exposing systemic flaws in the criminal justice system. This has highlighted the need for legal reforms to address issues such as eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, and fraudulent forensic science, ultimately aiming to prevent future wrongful convictions.
Law On Communications Interception During Criminal Investigations, Yohei Suda
Law On Communications Interception During Criminal Investigations, Yohei Suda
Washington International Law Journal
Whereas organized crime severely damages the peace and health of society, and increasingly it is extremely difficult to clarify the truth in criminal investigations without intercepting the telephone communications or other telecommunications of criminals in serious crimes committed by conspiracy, such as organized murder and unlawful trade of drugs or firearms, the purpose of this law is to set forth the requirements, procedures, and other matters that are relevant to the invasive action of intercepting telecommunications, as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 131, 1948), and are essential for dealing appropriately with such crimes, in such a …
The Japanese Law On Communications Interception During Criminal Investigatons: Translator's Introduction, Yohei Suda
The Japanese Law On Communications Interception During Criminal Investigatons: Translator's Introduction, Yohei Suda
Washington International Law Journal
Japan enacted the Law on Communications Interception During Criminal Investigations last year to help control organized crime. The legislation is, in part, a reaction to domestic and international pressure that grew from recent, well-publicized crimes such as the Aur Shinrikyo attack on a Tokyo subway. The Interception Law is a powerful tool for Japanese law enforcement, however the question of whether the Interception Law violates Japan's constitutional rights to privacy and secrecy of communication has not yet been resolved.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, James T. Skuthan, Rosemary T. Cakmis
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, James T. Skuthan, Rosemary T. Cakmis
Mercer Law Review
In 1999 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals broke new ground on a variety of issues related to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G."). A significant number of cases interpreted firearms possession in connection with various offenses; loss calculations for fraud offenses; Chapter Three adjustments, such as role, obstruction of justice, and reckless endangerment; and U.S.S.G. Section 5K departures. At the same time, the court consistently refused to revisit previously decided issues, such as the constitutionality of the crack cocaine guidelines, and sided with the majority of circuits in resolving issues of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit
Arkansas's Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction Act: The Balance Of Offender Rehabilitation And Accountability, Connie Hickman Tanner
Arkansas's Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction Act: The Balance Of Offender Rehabilitation And Accountability, Connie Hickman Tanner
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Available Post-Trial Relief After A State Criminal Conviction When Newly Discovered Evidence Establishes "Actual Innocence", Josephine Linker Hart, Guilford M. Dudley
Available Post-Trial Relief After A State Criminal Conviction When Newly Discovered Evidence Establishes "Actual Innocence", Josephine Linker Hart, Guilford M. Dudley
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Wyoming V. Houghton: Passengers' Belongings Subject To Searches Under The "Automobile Exception" To The Fourth Amendment's Warrant Requirements, Theresa H. Hammond
Wyoming V. Houghton: Passengers' Belongings Subject To Searches Under The "Automobile Exception" To The Fourth Amendment's Warrant Requirements, Theresa H. Hammond
Mercer Law Review
In Wyoming v. Houghton the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of conducting a warrantless search of a container under the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court held that when police officers have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may also search any container found in the car, including passengers' belongings, that are capable of concealing the object of the search.
Decriminalization Of Sodomy Under South Africa's 1996 Constitution: Implications For South African And U.S. Law, Heidi Joy Schmid
Decriminalization Of Sodomy Under South Africa's 1996 Constitution: Implications For South African And U.S. Law, Heidi Joy Schmid
Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
The note examines the landmark decision of the South African Constitutional Court in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v. Minister of Justice and Another, which invalidated sodomy laws as unconstitutional. The court held that these laws violated rights to dignity, privacy, and equality under the South African Constitution of 1996. Judge Sachs emphasized the interconnectedness of privacy and equality rights, advocating for a broad interpretation of privacy and the importance of dignity in challenging discriminatory laws. The decision not only advanced sexual minority rights in South Africa but also highlighted broader implications for global jurisprudence, …
Vehicle Searches – The Automobile Exception: The Constitutional Ride From Carroll V. United States To Wyoming V. Houghton, Martin L. O'Connor
Vehicle Searches – The Automobile Exception: The Constitutional Ride From Carroll V. United States To Wyoming V. Houghton, Martin L. O'Connor
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Joe Grano: The 'Kid From South Philly' Who Educated Us All (In Tribute To Joseph D. Grano), Yale Kamisar
Joe Grano: The 'Kid From South Philly' Who Educated Us All (In Tribute To Joseph D. Grano), Yale Kamisar
Articles
No serious student of police interrogation and confessions can write on the subject without building on Professor Joseph D. Grano's work or explaining why he or she disagrees with him (and doing so with considerable care). Nor is that all.
Coercion, Pop-Psychology, And Judicial Moralizing: Some Proposals For Curbing Judicial Abuse Of Probation Conditions, Andrew Horwitz
Coercion, Pop-Psychology, And Judicial Moralizing: Some Proposals For Curbing Judicial Abuse Of Probation Conditions, Andrew Horwitz
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Prosecutorial Discretion And Prosecution Guidelines: A Case Study In Controlling Federalization, Michael A. Simons
Prosecutorial Discretion And Prosecution Guidelines: A Case Study In Controlling Federalization, Michael A. Simons
Faculty Publications
In this Article Michael Simons examines the ways in which the federalization of crime can be controlled. Simons argues that prosecutorial discretion is the most important variable in the federalization process and that controlling prosecutorial discretion is the key to controlling federalization. He presents the Child Support Recovery Act as a model for how prosecution guidelines for federal criminal statutes can provide such control Federalization of criminal child support enforcement has been successful because federal prosecutors have exercised discretion in a manner consistent with the concerns expressed by the bench and the academy about federalization. Simons concludes by exploring how …
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Michael Edmund O'Neill
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Michael Edmund O'Neill
University of Richmond Law Review
The Commonwealth of Virginia is so named (as opposed to being denominated simply a "state") because the term "commonwealth" is used to indicate a government in which "supreme power is vested in the people."' That term is particularly apt, for in what better way does a government provide for the common weal of its people than by protecting them against crime, while at the same time respecting their individual rights and liberties? This is a delicate balance, one that is reflected in this survey of the most recent developments in Virginia criminal law and procedure. The legislative enactments and judicial …