Digital Commons Network^™

Merciful Juries: The Resilience Of Jury Nullification, Alan W. Schefin, Jon M. Van Dyke

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Great Repression: Criminal Punishment In The Nineteen-Eighties, Michael Mandel

Articles & Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law 1991 Legislative Update, Philip A. Cherner, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule And Confession Evidence: Some Perspectives On Evolving Practices And Policies In The United States And England And Wales, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Waiver Of Rights In The Interrogation Room: The Court's Dilemma, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Confessions And The Right To Silence In Japan, Daniel H. Foote

Articles

In several highly-publicized recent cases in Japan, individuals convicted of murder and sentenced to death were acquitted in retrials obtained after decades on death row. These so-called "death penalty retrial cases'" generated great controversy and considerable reflection about the criminal justice system in Japan. A central, substantive issue presented by these cases relates to the procurement and use of confessions; each of these cases-and several other major recent Japanese cases in which defendants have been acquitted following bitterly contested trials-turned on the validity of repudiated confessions.

Consequently, much recent commentary has focussed on conf essions and related issues. Not surprisingly, …

The Great Writ In Action: Empirical Light On The Federal Habeas Corpus Debate, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

The national debate regarding federal habeas corpus for state prisoners is fueled in the main by ideology. To some, the authority of the federal courts to entertain constitutional challenges to state criminal convictions is the embodiment of all that was right about the Warren Court and the vision that Court offered of a meaningful system of American liberty, underwritten by independent federal tribunals willing and able to check the coercive power of government. By this account, the Bill of Rights is the protean source of safeguards for individual freedom - commanding generous, imaginative, and insightful elaboration by federal courts at …

Who Is An Impartial Juror In An Age Of Mass Media?, Fred H. Cate, Newton N. Minow

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection And The Procedural Bar Doctrine In Federal Habeas Corpus, Laura Dooley

Scholarly Works

Winford L. Stokes, Jr. and Theodore C. Harris had much in common. Both were death-row inmates in the late 1980s. Both were convicted of murder following bifurcated jury trials in which they later alleged that they had not received effective assistance of counsel as required by the federal Constitution. Both inmates sought collateral review of their convictions in federal courts. The similarities between them end there. Because Stokes had procedurally defaulted on his federal constitutional claim in state court under the law of Missouri, the federal appeals court refused to consider the merits of his federal constitutional claim.' Harris, on …

Controlling Discretion By Administrative Regulations: The Use, Misuse, And The Nonuse Of Police Rules And Policies In Fourth Amendment Adjudication, Wayne R. Lafave

Michigan Law Review

In assaying fourth amendment jurisprudence, it is useful to take into account available knowledge regarding the actual search and seizure practices of the police. Especially helpful is the perspective afforded by the American Bar Foundation's Survey of the Administration of Criminal Justice in the United States, which ranks as the preeminent empirical study of law enforcement procedures in this country. Despite the fact - or, more likely, because of the fact that the ABF Survey was published over twenty years ago, certain insights from that study highlight some recent and significant changes in this corpus juris inconstans .

Clearly "the …

The Most Fundamental Change In The Criminal Justice System: The Role Of The Prosecutor In Sentence Reduction, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

As every lawyer knows, the prosecutor is the most powerful figure in the American criminal justice system. The prosecutor decides whom to charge, what charges to bring, whether to permit a defendant to plead guilty, and whether to confer immunity. In carrying out this broad decision-making power, the prosecutor enjoys considerable independence. Indeed, one of the most elusive and vexing subjects in criminal justice has been to define the limits of the prosecutor’s discretion.

Legislating Confession Law In Great Britain: A Statutory Approach To Police Interrogations, Mark Berger

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I provides an overview of the development of British confession law, including the changes under PACE. Part II examines PACE's impact on related subjects, such as detention conditions, access to legal advice, and waiver of the right of access to a solicitor. Finally, Part III suggests that the British experience in developing a statutory framework to regulate these issues can serve as a model for undertaking such reforms in the United States.

The Hong Kong Jury: A Microcosm Of Society?, Peter Duff, Mark Findlay, Carla Howarth

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The claim that the jury is a randomly chosen and representative sample of community is an important part of the ideology which currently underpins the institution. Supporters of the jury argue that both its impartiality and its independence from the State are bolstered by the fact that it represents a randomly selected cross-section of the populace. In most common law jurisdictions where the jury operates, various steps have been taken over recent years in order preserve and strengthen the perception of the jury as a "microcosm of democratic society". For example, in England the property qualification for jurors was removed …

The Self-Incrimination Debate, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Warren Court And Its Conservative Critics: Toward A Unified Theory Of Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Donald A. Dripps

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I develops more fully the differences that divide liberal and conservative commentators on criminal procedure, taking special note of the series of Reports prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy and published recently in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Part II explains my disquiet with the suggestion that original-meaning jurisprudence ought to guide criminal procedure doctrine. Part II also defends the thesis that the fourteenth amendment protects the individual interest in freedom from unjust punishment, rather than any abstract interest in truth for its own sake. Part III considers two familiar controversies in criminal …

The Truth About Massiah, James J. Tomkovicz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

First, the Article will summarize the Justice Department's discussion of the Massiah right to counsel and the exclusion of evidence under Massiah. Next, it will evaluate the nature of the Report and the character of legal scholarship. Finally, it will explore the substantive debate over Massiah. In that section, the Article will point out the matters on which the DOJ and I agree, will attempt to frame the fundamental questions raised by the Massiah doctrine, and will investigate potential sources of answers to those constitutional questions. Ultimately, it will provide the answers that I prefer, explaining the premises …

The Adversarial System At Risk, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The most ominous recent development affecting the balance of forces in the adversary system is the unprecedented attack by prosecutors on criminal defense lawyers themselves. Grand jury subpoenas to attorneys, law office searches, disqualification motions, fee forfeiture proceedings, and, most recently, IRS attempts to enforce currency-reporting regulations do not seem to be isolated occurrences or mere happenstance. Rather, perhaps inspired by Shakespeare's injunction in Henry VI to "kill all the lawyers," some prosecutors appear to have concluded that the most effective way to prevail in the battle against crime is to cripple the defense lawyers, particularly those who represent defendants …

Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today? Foreword, Michael B. Mushlin

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Judges Abandon Analogy: The Problem Of Delay In Commencing Criminal Prosecutions, Phyllis Goldfarb

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure In The "Land Of Oz": Lessons For America, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Stanford V. Kentucky: The Minimum Age For The Maximum Penalty - Death, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (1990), Alison R. Faltersack

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Foreiture, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (1990), Stephen M. Kightlinger

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Addressing The Needs Of Attorneys For The Damned, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

This article is an introduction to the UMKC Law Review symposium issue dedicated to exploring the topic of capital punishment. UMKC Professor of Law Sean O’Brien shares how the growing importance of capital litigation makes this a timely and appropriate subject for consideration and shares how the university and the Law Review's attention to the death penalty debate contributes to more than just academic discussion.

Vindicating The Defendant's Constitutional Right To Testify At A Criminal Trial: The Need For An On-The-Record Waiver, 51 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 809 (1990), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"The Judge Would Then Be The Legislator": Dismantling Separation Of Powers In The Name Of Sentencing Reform—Mistretta V. United States, 109 S. Ct. 647 (1989), Kristin L. Timm

Washington Law Review

In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch charged with promulgating binding sentencing guidelines for federal crimes. In Mistretta v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not violate separation of powers principles. This Note asserts that the Court misapplied separation of powers theory, and that the Sentencing Commission violates separation of powers in two ways. First, by delegating to the judicial branch the authority to create sentencing guidelines which have the effect of law, Congress impermissibly aggrandized the core function of …

Use Of The "Zola Plea" In New Jersey Capital Prosecutions, J Thomas Sullivan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Ilene H. Nagel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Miracle Cure For Sentencing Disparity, Kathryn A. Walton

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Custodial Interrogation, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article attempts to resurrect a concept crucial to the Supreme Court lexicon. It is not, however, a police manual. This Article concerns itself solely with questions surrounding the admissibility of confessions, and in so doing, attempts to show that only a reconsideration of custodial interrogation can restore the "significant deprivations" language to the status granted it in Miranda v. Arizona.

Court-Appointed Attorneys: Old Problems And New Solutions, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.