Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy
Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
A defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are violated when a state agency fails to disclose crucial exculpatory or impeachment evidence — so-called Brady violations. When this happens, the defendant should be provided the means not only to locate this evidence, but also to fully develop it in state post-conviction processes. When the state system prohibits both the means and legal mechanism to develop Brady claims, the defendant should be immune to any procedural penalties in either state or federal court. In other words, the defendant should not be required to return to state court to exhaust such a claim. …
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Articles
There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
Articles
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 v. Arizona.
Character Impeachment Evidence: The Asymmetrical Interaction Between Personality And Situation, Richard D. Friedman
Character Impeachment Evidence: The Asymmetrical Interaction Between Personality And Situation, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Part I of this Comment, I present a short version of my argument against the admissibility of character impeachment evidence of criminal defendants, showing how the key elements ofthis argument are present in Professor Uviller's own Article. In Part II, I suggest that, notwithstanding Professor Uviller's comments to the contrary, an asymmetrical result-never admitting character evidence to impeach criminal defendants but admitting such evidence in some circumstances to impeach other witnesses- is perfectly reasonable. Finally, in Part III, I contend that Professor Uviller's interesting judicial surveys support the solution I have proposed for the problem of character impeachment evidence.
Character Impeachment Evidence: Psycho-Bayesian (!?) Analysis And A Proposed Overhaul, Richard D. Friedman
Character Impeachment Evidence: Psycho-Bayesian (!?) Analysis And A Proposed Overhaul, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Typically, arguments for restricting character impeachment evidence are based in part on the premise that prior crimes, at least violent crimes, generally indicate little about a person's veracity. The argument advanced here against character impeachment of criminal defendants does not rely on that premise; in fact, it accepts the premise that prior antisocial behavior, even not involving dishonesty, often does indicate a good deal about a person's general truthtelling inclination. A careful analysis of the situation of the accused on the witness stand-rather than an easy assumption about irrelevance-leads to this Article's broad conclusion that character impeachment evidence of criminal …
The Admissibility Of Prior Silence To Impeach The Testimony Of Criminal Defendants, Rex A. Sharp
The Admissibility Of Prior Silence To Impeach The Testimony Of Criminal Defendants, Rex A. Sharp
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note focuses on whether a defendant who was called as a witness at the prior, severed trial of a codefendant and refused to testify by invoking the fifth amendment can subsequently be impeached by this silence at his own trial. In addition to the obvious implications this issue has for severed criminal trials, the factors considered when deciding whether impeachment by silence should be allowed generally are in sharpest focus in this factual setting. Thus, the analysis of the constitutional and evidentiary questions this Note enlists to argue that impeachment by silence in this context is permissible applies as …
Rules Pertaining To Witnesses, John W. Reed
Rules Pertaining To Witnesses, John W. Reed
Book Chapters
Article VI of the Michigan Rules of Evidence contains the rules dealing with witnesses. Trials bring to mind testimonial evidence. There surely are other kinds of evidence, such as docmnents, guns, automobile tires, chemical substances, and the like. But most evidence comes from the mouths of witnesses, and even demonstrative evidence usually is admitted only after a witness has taken the stand and testified to foundation facts. So it is important and appropriate that we turn to the provisions of the rules that deal with qualifications and credibility of witnesses. I would like to direct your attention to MRE 601 …
Employing Inconsistent Statements For Impeachment And As Substantive Evidence: A Critical Review And Proposed Amendments Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 801 ( D ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 613, And 607, Michael H. Graham
Michigan Law Review
The Federal Rules of Evidence have already been employed as a model for the new Uniform Rules of Evidence and for several state codifications, and yet apparently none of the drafters of these schemes gave serious consideration either to expanding admissibility under 801(d)(1)(A) selectively or to controlling potential abuse regarding the use of prior inconsistent statements not substantively admissible. This Article, after exploring the history, development, and rationale of rules 801(d)(1)(A), 613, and 607, proposes that rules 613 and 607 be amended to bring their provisions into conformity with rule 801 (d) (1) (A). In the same vein, the Article …
An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis
An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Almost every state permits persons convicted of a crime to testify in either their own or another person's behalf. Nonetheless, these states allow evidence of a person's prior criminal conviction to be used to impeach his credibility. The use of this method of impeachment in criminal trials has been the subject of substantial adverse criticism; yet, the practice remains widespread. This article first will discuss the problems that arise from the use of prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes in criminal trials and then will examine several proposals that would restrict the use of such evidence. Finally, the article will …
Grand Jury Secrecy, Richard M. Calkins
Grand Jury Secrecy, Richard M. Calkins
Michigan Law Review
When a leading state such as Illinois enacts "reform" legislation, an impact on the legislatures of other jurisdictions may be anticipated. Accordingly, a need exists for an examination of this legislation in the light of the common-law background of grand jury secrecy and for a further analysis of it in the face of the growing trend toward more liberalized discovery of grand jury minutes in other jurisdictions. It is the contention of the author that such an empirical study will demonstrate that this legislation adopted by Illinois is contrary to all modern judicial thinking and is, in fact, a retrogressive …
Evidence - Examination Of Witnesses - Surprise As Grounds For Impeaching A Party's Own Witness, John A. Ziegler, Jr. S.Ed., Raymond Dittrich
Evidence - Examination Of Witnesses - Surprise As Grounds For Impeaching A Party's Own Witness, John A. Ziegler, Jr. S.Ed., Raymond Dittrich
Michigan Law Review
The defendant was convicted of the statutory rape of his stepdaughter. Immediately following the alleged offense, the victim had signed a statement accusing the defendant of the crime charged. Before the trial, however, the district attorney was advised by the defense counsel, and by the victim herself, that the written statement was not true. At the trial, when called as a witness by the commonwealth, the girl repudiated her earlier statement, whereupon the district attorney pleaded surprise and was permitted to use the prior statement to impeach. On appeal, held, affirmed. The district attorney was "actually surprised" when the …