Law Commons^™

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court decided five Miranda1 cases in 2003-2004, making this one of the most active fifteen-month periods for the law of self-incrimination since the controversial case was decided in 1966. In this Article, we consider three of those five cases-Chavez v. Martinez, Missouri v. Seibert and United States v. Patane-along with the blockbuster decision four years ago in Dickerson v. United States. in an attempt to decipher what, if anything, this remarkable level of activity teaches us about the direction of the Court's self-incrimination jurisprudence. In the end, while these cases, like those before them, may not entirely clarify …

Voice Identification, Writing Exemplars And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Russell J. Weintraub

Vanderbilt Law Review

The problems involved in defining the nature of the privilege against self-incrimination and in setting its limits have been much mooted in recent years. Though these problems have been brought into sharp focus by the present very urgent and certainly justified concern for our national security, they are problems which are inherent in the privilege itself. They have been with us for a long time.

One of these problems concerns the extent to which a person may refuse to participate in criminal proceedings brought against him. Doubtless not even the most liberal proponent of the privilege would claim that an …

To What Extent Does The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Protect A Witness Against Forced Production Of Documents, Herschiel S. Barnes, Charles K. Cosner

Vanderbilt Law Review

This comment is intended to be a companion piece to the Comment in Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. I, No. 2, which discusses self-incrimination by means of physical disclosures. The preceding Comment gave a brief account of the privilege and pointed out that the Constitutions of the Federal Government and forty-six states have incorporated the common law privilege against self-incrimination. The two exceptions among the states, Iowa and New Jersey, have accepted the privilege, either by incorporation into their common law by judicial interpretation, or by statute. It is the purpose of this comment to discuss the possibility of the invocation …

To What Extent Does The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Protect An Accused From Physical Disclosures, Mary E. Mann, Thomas A. Thomas

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Federal Government and forty-six states have incorporated within their constitutions the common law privilege against self-incrimination. Iowa and New Jersey, the two exceptions, have accepted the privilege, either by incorporation into their common law by judicial interpretation, or by statute. Originally, this universal acceptance was an outgrowth of the thumb-screw and rack days of the star chamber in England, and the protection from physical torture by officers of the law to extract confessions was deemed such a fundamental right' as to warrant constitutional safeguards. However, since its adoption in this country, authorities both in and outside of the legal …