Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Use Of Secret Evidence By Government Lawyers: Balancing Defendants' Rights With National Security Concerns, Tracy L. Conn
Use Of Secret Evidence By Government Lawyers: Balancing Defendants' Rights With National Security Concerns, Tracy L. Conn
Cleveland State Law Review
The ability to use secret evidence in trials involving national security matters is an extremely controversial power of the government lawyer. Although the use of secret evidence was a divisive issue before September 11, 2001, the terrorist attacks that day sparked the passage of new legislation that increased the power of the government lawyer to use classified evidence. By examining the cases involving secret evidence both before and after September 11, in particular the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, it becomes apparent that what is at stake is the appropriate balance between national security concerns and the constitutional rights of defendants. …
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court in Leon v. United States held that where law enforcement officials execute a search warrant issued in violation of the dictates of the fourth amendment but act in the "good faith," "objectively-reasonable" belief that the warrant was constitutionally valid, the fruits of the search should not (with a few exceptions) be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. On June 8, 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court, after calling for and receiving briefs and arguments on the same issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified, concluded, for reasons of …
Impeaching A Defendant's Testimony By Proof Of Post-Arrest Silence: Doyle V. Ohio, F. Ronald O'Keefe
Impeaching A Defendant's Testimony By Proof Of Post-Arrest Silence: Doyle V. Ohio, F. Ronald O'Keefe
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note will attempt to outline the genesis of the issue of impeachment by post-arrest silence by first discussing the various inquiries into the probative value of silence which had been undertaken by courts on the federal level before Hale (United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975)) . The focus will then shift to the Hale Court's treatment of this issue. The constitutional aspects of the issue will then be discussed, and the pronouncement of the Doyle Court (Doyle v. Ohio, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976)) will be analyzed with an emphasis on the continuity between the Hale and …