Digital Commons Network^™

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 …

Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid

Michigan Law Review

Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …

Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …

Problems In Domestic Violence: Should Victims Be Forced To Participate In The Prosecution Of Their Abusers?, Thomas L. Kirsch Ii

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice In The Supreme Court: A Review Of United States Supreme Court Criminal And Habeas Corpus Decisions (October 4, 1999 - October 1, 2000), Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

Mapp Goes Abroad, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

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.

Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …

Why Do People Support Capital Punishment? The Death Penalty As Community Ritual, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 765 (2001), Donald L. Beschle

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Should An Effective International Criminal Court Have Primacy Or Be Complementary To National Courts? An Analysis Of Concurrent Jurisdiction In The Ad Hoc Tribunals And The Rome Statute, Godwin Yenika Fonye

LLM Theses and Essays

Concurrent criminal jurisdiction depicts a scenario where two or more judicial systems have the legal capacity to investigate, prosecute and punish an accused person for the same criminal acts under their respective, separate jurisdiction. This usually occurs between sovereign states. In the realm of crimes under international law, the distinguishing characteristic is the universal jurisdiction that is conferred on all States to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such crimes. The "cumulative effect of these different principles of jurisdiction sometimes is to vest multiple states with concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute a given crime. This paper would attempt to analyze the …

The 2001 Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Reforms: An Analysis And Legislative History, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article has four parts. First, it describes the general structure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the approach to sentencing economic crimes in effect between 1987 and 2001. Second, it outlines the defects in the former economic crime guidelines that led to the call for reform. Third, it describes the process undertaken by the Sentencing Commission that led to the passage of the 2001 economic crime amendments and, in so doing, provides a roadmap to sources of legislative history. Fourth, it explains and analyzes the new guidelines in light of their legislative history, with primary emphasis on the consolidated …

Juridical And Jurisdictional Disconnects, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

Although extraterritorial trials for human rights abusers certainly achieve some justice, this Article posits -- through a case-study of post-genocide Rwanda -- that the effects of such trials are circumscribed by the fact they may have little meaning among perpetrators and victims in post-conflict societies. This limited meaning particularly attaches to trials conducted extraterritorially through international tribunals as well as trials conducted in foreign national courts through the exercise of what loosely is called "universal jurisdiction." This circumscribed meaning results in these trials' having limited deterrence effects, although they may go some way to satisfying the deontological need to punish …

The Prosecutor's Duty To Truth, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article discusses the prosecutor's duty to refrain from conduct that impedes the search for truth. A prosecutor may impede the truth-finding process in several ways: (1) distorting the truth by attacking the defendant's character, misleading and misrepresenting facts, and engaging in inflammatory conduct; (2) subverting the truth by making false statements and presenting false evidence; (3) suppressing the truth by failing to disclose potentially truth-enhancing evidence or obstructing defense access to potentially truth-enhancing evidence; and (4) other truth-disserving conduct that exploits defense counsel's misconduct and mistakes and prevents introduction of potentially truth-serving defenses. Part I also …

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 …

Overview Of Arkansas Warrantless Search And Seizure Law, David J. Sachar

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Craft Of Due Process, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Israel's presentation "On the Costs of Uniformity and the Prospects of Dualism in Constitutional Criminal Procedure."

Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …

Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

When I was first introduced to the constitutional regulation of criminal procedure in the mid-1950s, a single issue dominated the field: To what extent did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose upon states the same constitutional restraints that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments imposed upon the federal government? While those Bill of Rights provisions, as even then construed, imposed a broad range of constitutional restraints upon the federal criminal justice system, the federal system was (and still is) minuscule as compared to the combined systems of the fifty states. With the Bill of Rights provisions …

The Constitutionality Of Dna Sampling On Arrest, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

Every state now collects DNA from people convicted of certain offenses. Law enforcement authorities promote offender DNA databanking on the theory that it will identify offenders who commit additional crimes while or probation or parole, or after they have finished serving their sentences. Even relatively small databases have yielded such dividends. As these database searches uncover the perpetrators of rapes, murders, and other offenses, the pressure builds to expand the coverage of the databases.

Recent proposals call for extending not merely the scope of crimes for which DNA databanking would be used, but also the point at which the samples …

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.

Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …

The Homosexual-Advance Defense And Hate Crimes Statutes: Their Interaction And Conflict, Scott D. Mccoy

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lawyers, Jails, And The Law’S Fake Bargains, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Peculiar Case Of State V. Terry Lynn Nichols: Are Television Cameras Really Banned From Oklahoma Criminal Proceedings?, Robert D. Nelon

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The truck bomb ripped into A.P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m. One hundred sixty-eight men, women, and children died. None knew Timothy McVeigh or Terry Lynn Nichols, nor did McVeigh and Nichols know them. In fact, Nichols was not even in Oklahoma City when the bombing occurred. He is now--occupying a special cell in the Oklahoma County Jail, awaiting trial on state charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and aiding in placing a bomb near a public building.

Nichols' trip to Oklahoma City was circuitous. Initially, separate federal proceedings against McVeigh and Nichols were …

The Doctrine Of Non-Inquiry And The Preservation Of Human Rights:-Is There Room For Reconciliation?, Michael S. Topiel

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note explores the tension between individual human rights under international law and state interests in combating cross-border crime, focusing on the doctrine of noninquiry in extradition cases. It argues that while the Convention Against Torture imposes obligations to prevent extradition to situations of torture, the doctrine of noninquiry—where courts avoid scrutinizing the requesting state’s justice system—remains crucial for maintaining separation of powers and diplomatic relations. The analysis highlights the balancing act between protecting human rights and ensuring international cooperation in law enforcement.