Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Remaining Silent In Indian Country: Self-Incrimination And Grants Of Immunity For Tribal Court Defendants, Philipp C. Kunze
Remaining Silent In Indian Country: Self-Incrimination And Grants Of Immunity For Tribal Court Defendants, Philipp C. Kunze
Washington Law Review
A defendant in state and federal courts is entitled to a constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment establishes this privilege, which can only be overcome through a voluntary waiver or by the granting of an appropriate level of immunity. Those grants of immunity were made mutually binding on the state and federal governments in Kastigar v. United States and Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. However, in Talton v. Mayes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not limit the conduct of the more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes …
Danger Ahead: Risk Assessment And The Future Of Bail Reform, John Logan Koepke, David G. Robinson
Danger Ahead: Risk Assessment And The Future Of Bail Reform, John Logan Koepke, David G. Robinson
Washington Law Review
In the last five years, legislators in all fifty states have made changes to their pretrial justice systems. Reform efforts aim to shrink jails by incarcerating fewer people—particularly poor, low-risk defendants and racial minorities. Many jurisdictions are embracing pretrial risk assessment instruments—statistical tools that use historical data to forecast which defendants can safely be released—as a centerpiece of reform. Now, many are questioning the extent to which pretrial risk assessment instruments actually serve reform goals. Existing scholarship and debate centers on how the instruments themselves may reinforce racial disparities and on how their opaque algorithms may frustrate due process interests. …
Contesting Police Credibility, Rachel Moran
Contesting Police Credibility, Rachel Moran
Washington Law Review
Criminal cases often amount to credibility contests between two actors: the complainant, testifying for the government, and the defendant. In theory, the defendant’s opportunity to attack the credibility of government witnesses should be equal to or greater than the government’s opportunity to attack the credibility of the defendant, given that the defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial. But when the government’s witnesses are police officers, the converse occurs. Although the phenomenon of police officers lying at trial is so well documented that it has its own euphemism, “testilying,” the law imposes tremendous obstacles to defense counsel obtaining …
Incentivized Informants, Brady, Ruiz, And Wrongful Imprisonment: Requiring Pre-Plea Disclosure Of Material Exculpatory Evidence, Markus Surratt
Incentivized Informants, Brady, Ruiz, And Wrongful Imprisonment: Requiring Pre-Plea Disclosure Of Material Exculpatory Evidence, Markus Surratt
Washington Law Review
An incentivized informant scandal recently hit Orange County, California where county officials were caught lying, hiding, and not providing information about their informants. Concerned citizens, attorneys, and scholars are beginning to ask more questions as these stories receive increased nationwide attention: what should we do about false incentivized informant testimony? What can we do? Under Brady, Giglio, Ruiz, and their progeny, in criminal cases the government must turn over any material exculpatory evidence that it possesses, or that is available, when the defendant decides to go to trial. However, if the government does not know—or purports not …