Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Police (4)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Capital punishment (2)
- Death penalty (2)
- Exclusionary rule (2)
-
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Miranda v. Arizona (2)
- Warren Court (2)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Burger Court (1)
- Computers (1)
- Crime crisis (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Criminal justice administration (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Felonies (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Griffin v. California (1)
- Innocence (1)
- Interrogation (1)
- Juries (1)
- Justice (1)
- Mapp v. Ohio (1)
- Miranda rights (1)
- Miscarriages of justice (1)
- Misdemeanors (1)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1)
- Plea bargaining (1)
- Polsby (Daniel D.) (1)
- Prosecutors (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler
A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler
Michigan Law Review
Supreme Court decisions have vacillated between two incompatible readings of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Court sometimes sees this language as affording defendants and suspects a right to remain silent. This interpretation - a view that countless repetitions of the Miranda warnings have impressed upon the public - asserts that government officials have no legitimate claim to testimonial evidence tending to incriminate the person who possesses it. Although officials need not encourage a suspect to remain silent, they must remain at least neutral toward …
Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave
Computers, Urinals, And The Fourth Amendment: Confessions Of A Patron Saint, Wayne R. Lafave
Michigan Law Review
At least the title indicates that the article is somehow concerned with "the Fourth Amendment," though for anyone who knows me or is at all familiar with my work, that piece of information hardly would come as a revelation. The fact of the matter is that I almost always write about the Fourth Amendment; I am in an academic rut so deep as to deserve recognition in the Guinness Book World of Records. Search and seizure has been my cheval de bataille during my entire time as a law professor and even when I was a mere law student. …
Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker
Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker
Michigan Law Review
For the purposes of my argument, I adapt Professor Meir Dan-Cohen's distinction (which he in turn borrowed from Jeremy Bentham) between "conduct" rules and "decision" rules. Bentham and Dan-Cohen make this distinction in the context of substantive criminal law; for their purposes, "conduct" rules are addressed to the general public in order to guide its behavior (for example, "Let no person steal") and "decision" rules are addressed to public officials in order to guide their decisionmaking about the consequences of violating conduct rules (for example, "Let the judge cause whoever is convicted of stealing to be hanged"). But as any …
Reply To Daniel Polsby (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross
Reply To Daniel Polsby (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross
Articles
I'd like to offer a few words in response to Professor Polsby's articulate, forceful and amusing essay in favor of capital punishment.
Excessive Criminal Justice Caseloads: Challenging The Conventional Wisdom, Jerold H. Israel
Excessive Criminal Justice Caseloads: Challenging The Conventional Wisdom, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
Since the mid-1960s, no element of the criminal justice environment has received more attention and been accorded greater importance, in both popular and professional commentary, than has the pressure of heavy caseloads. The lack of sufficient resources to deal with overbearing caseloads has been widely characterized as the most pervasive and most critical administrative challenge faced by police, prosecutors, public defenders, and courts.' National commissions have regularly complained that the criminal justice system is "overcrowded, overworked, [and] undermanned," and must be given "substantially more money" to cure those ills if it is ever to perform all of the tasks assigned …
The Rights Of The Accused In A 'Crime Crisis', Yale Kamisar
The Rights Of The Accused In A 'Crime Crisis', Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
"I grieve for my country to say that the administration of the criminal law in all the states in the Union (there may be one or two exceptions) is a disgrace to our civilization .... The institution of trial by jury has come to be regarded as such a fetish in our country that state legislatures have exalted the power of the jury and diminished the power of the court .... The counsel for the defense, relying on the diminished power of the court, creates, by dramatic art and by harping on the importance of unimportant details, a false atmosphere …
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda.
The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross
The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross
Articles
As the Supreme Court has said, time and again, death is different: It is "different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice;"1 it "differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year sentence differs from one of only a year or two;"' 2 and so forth. Traditionally, this observation has justified special procedural protections for capital defendants. Justice Harlan put it nicely nearly forty years ago: "I do not concede that whatever process is 'due' an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a capital …