Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 21 of 21
Full-Text Articles in Law
Confessions In An International Age: Re-Examining Admissibility Through The Lens Of Foreign Interrogations, Julie Tanaka Siegel
Confessions In An International Age: Re-Examining Admissibility Through The Lens Of Foreign Interrogations, Julie Tanaka Siegel
Michigan Law Review
In Colorado v. Connelly the Supreme Court held that police misconduct is necessary for an inadmissible confession. Since the Connelly decision, courts and scholars have framed the admissibility of a confession in terms of whether it successfully deters future police misconduct. As a result, the admissibility of a confession turns largely on whether U.S. police acted poorly, and only after overcoming this threshold have courts considered factors pointing to the reliability and voluntariness of the confession. In the international context, this translates into the routine and almost mechanic admission of confessions— even when there is clear indication that the confession …
Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee
Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee
Michigan Law Review
Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes.” In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle …
Judicial Takings: Musings On Stop The Beach, James E. Krier
Judicial Takings: Musings On Stop The Beach, James E. Krier
Articles
Judicial takings weren’t much talked about until a few years ago, when the Stop the Beach case made them suddenly salient. The case arose from a Florida statute, enacted in 1961, that authorizes public restoration of eroded beaches by adding sand to widen them seaward. Under the statute, the state has title to any new dry land resulting from restored beaches, meaning that waterfront owners whose land had previously extended to the mean high-tide line end up with public beaches between their land and the water. This, the owners claimed, resulted in a taking of their property, more particularly their …
The Right To Counsel For Indians Accused Of Crime: A Tribal And Congressional Imperative, Barbara L. Creel
The Right To Counsel For Indians Accused Of Crime: A Tribal And Congressional Imperative, Barbara L. Creel
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Native American Indians charged in tribal court criminal proceedings are not entitled to court appointed defense counsel. Under well-settled principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes are not bound by Fifth Amendment due process guarantees or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Instead, they are bound by the procedural protections established by Congress in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Indian defendants have the right to counsel at their own expense. This Article excavates the historical background of the lack of counsel in the tribal court arena and exposes the myriad problems that it …
The Pastor, The Burning House, And The Double Jeopardy Clause: The True Story Behind Evans V. Michigan, David A. Moran
The Pastor, The Burning House, And The Double Jeopardy Clause: The True Story Behind Evans V. Michigan, David A. Moran
Articles
The true story behind Evans v. Michigan is that a man who was probably innocent, and who would almost certainly have been acquitted by the jury, had his trial shortened after it became obvious to the judge that the police had picked up a man who had nothing to do with the fire. In other words, the facts set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court, and repeated by Alito, were grossly misleading. And because I, like Alito, believed the Michigan Supreme Court’s version of the facts, I made a silly mistake when I agreed to take the case. That silly …
How Much Does It Matter Whether Courts Work Within The "Clearly Marked" Provisions Of The Bill Of Rights Or With The "Generalities" Of The Fourteenth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
We know that it really mattered to Justice Hugo Black. As he made clear in his famous dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California] Black was convinced that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply the complete protection of the Bill of Rights to the states.2 And, as he also made plain in his Adamson dissent, he was equally convinced that working with the "specific" or "explicit" guarantees of the first Eight Amendments would furnish Americans more protection than would applying the generalities of the Fourteenth Amendment.3
Proximate Cause In Constitutional Torts: Holding Interrogators Liable For Fifth Amendment Violations At Trial, Joel Flaxman
Proximate Cause In Constitutional Torts: Holding Interrogators Liable For Fifth Amendment Violations At Trial, Joel Flaxman
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues for the approach taken by the Sixth Circuit in McKinley: a proper understanding of the Fifth Amendment requires holding that an officer who coerces a confession that is used at trial to convict a defendant in violation of the right against self-incrimination should face liability for the harm of conviction and imprisonment. Part I examines how the Supreme Court and the circuits have applied the concept of common law proximate causation to constitutional torts and argues that lower courts are wrong to blindly adopt common law rules without reference to the constitutional rights at stake. It …
Public Ruses, James E. Krier, Christopher Serkin
Public Ruses, James E. Krier, Christopher Serkin
Articles
The public use requirement of eminent domain law may be working its way back into the United States Constitution. To be sure, the words "public use" appear in the document-and in many state constitutions as well, but the federal provision applies to the states in any event-as one of the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the government's inherent power to take private property against the will of its owners. (The other limitation is that "just compensation" must be paid, of which more later.) Any taking of private property, the text suggests, must be for public use. Those words, however, have amounted …
Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel
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 …
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.
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
Uncoupling The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Uncoupling The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Articles
The law of takings couples together matters that should be treated independently. The conventional view, shared by courts and commentators alike, has been that any takings case can be resolved in one of two ways: either there is a taking and compensation is due, or there is no taking and no compensation is due. These results are fine as long as one holding or the other serves the two central concerns of the Takings Clause - eficiency and justice. But a problem arises when the two purposes behind the law of takings come into cordhct, as they readily might. It …
Adverse Inferences From Silence, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy
Adverse Inferences From Silence, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Report, the eighth in the Truth in Criminal Justice series, assesses the rules relating to the evidentiary consideration of the defendant's silence. Its general conclusion is that the existing restrictive rules in this area are unjustified impediments to the search for truth. The notion that the fifth amendment's prohibition of compelling a person in a criminal case to be a witness against himself bars drawing adverse inferences from the defendant's silence is not well-founded. In practical effect, these rules impede the conviction of the guilty by barring consideration of an aspect of the defendant's conduct-his failure to respond to …
Duckworth V. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, Yale Kamisar
Duckworth V. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Professor Yale Kamisar, the country's foremost scholar of Miranda and police interrogation, presents an analysis and critique of the Supreme Court's latest interpretation of Miranda. In Duckworth, a 5-4 Court upheld the "if and when" language systematically used by the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." The real issue was whether the police effectively conveyed the substance of a vital part of Miranda: the right to have a lawyer appointed prior to any questioning. Professor Kamisar …
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
Michigan Law Review
Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on four counts of willfully evading federal income taxes due for the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. His motion before trial to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was firmly convinced that there could have been no legal or competent evidence before the grand jury was denied by the trial court. At the conclusion of the government's case, and again just before the case went to the jury, counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that only hearsay evidence offered by three revenue agents had …
Criminal Law - Contradictory Statements Under Oath As Grounds For Perjury In The Federal Courts, Richard M. Adams S.Ed.
Criminal Law - Contradictory Statements Under Oath As Grounds For Perjury In The Federal Courts, Richard M. Adams S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Perjury has frequently been described as one of the more difficult convictions to obtain, and the truth of this saying is no better illustrated than in the case of Harvey Matusow. During the two years in which ex-Communist Matusow served as a professional government witness, he accused 180 or more persons as being members of the Communist Party or Communist sympathizers. This same witness has now described himself as a "habitual and perpetual liar" and has publicly admitted that all of his previous testimony was false. On the strength of this recantation, motions were filed for a new trial in …
Constitutional Law - Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel In Federal Courts And Waiver Thereof, Richard M. Adams S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel In Federal Courts And Waiver Thereof, Richard M. Adams S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Indicted for illegal traffic in narcotics, petitioner and his trial counsel allegedly attempted to fabricate an alibi on the false testimony of petitioner's girl friend. The evidence indicated that on several occasions before trial, the girl was invited to the office of petitioner's attorney, given narcotics, and told to memorize certain false testimony to be used in petitioner's defense. Later the girl bad a change of mind and agreed to testify for the government Despite the strenuous objections of defendant's counsel, a description of this alleged fraud on the court was given in the prosecution's opening statement, and the witness …
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Federal Immunity Statute Applicable To State Court, Raymond R. Trombadore S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Federal Immunity Statute Applicable To State Court, Raymond R. Trombadore S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
ln response to a summons, petitioner appeared to testify before a congressional committee investigating crime, and confessed to having run a gambling business in Maryland. This confession was used in the criminal court of Baltimore to convict petitioner of conspiring to violate the state's anti-lottery laws. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which rejected petitioner's contention that use of the committee testimony was forbidden by a federal statute which provides that no testimony given by a witness in congressional inquiries "shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court." On …
Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination - Effect Of State Immunity Statute In Federal Court
Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination - Effect Of State Immunity Statute In Federal Court
Michigan Law Review
The defendant was indicted for violation of the National Prohibition Act. He pleaded immunity from prosecution in the federal court because of his forced testimony in the trial of another in the state court. Held, the state immunity statute was ineffective to protect the defendant in a federal court. United States v. Smith, 51 F.(2d) 803 (1931).
The Federal Constitution Is Not Violated By A State Law Compelling One Accused Of Crime To Testify Against Himself, James H. Brewster
The Federal Constitution Is Not Violated By A State Law Compelling One Accused Of Crime To Testify Against Himself, James H. Brewster
Articles
A case has been recently decided by the Supreme Court of Colorado, upon a condition of facts which it seems, has not an exact parallel in any of the reports. After being in litigation for more than eleven years the question involved was finally settled by the court of last resort of that state. In effect the decision goes to the extent of saying, that when a note is endorsed specially and afterwards comes back to the party making such special endorsement, and the party reissues the same without striking out his endorsement, no new endorsement is necessary, since the …