Law Commons^™

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Seizing Attorney Fees-Frozen Assets Or Frozen Justice? The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Of Choice Is Given The Cold Shoulder, Anthony G. Vella

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This note examines the United States Supreme Court decision that found confiscation of criminal defense attorney fees under RICO and the continuing criminal enterprise statutes is permissible under the sixth amendment. The Court's reasoning is presented in this note. The note analyzes the Court's decision through the eyes of the dissenters and other commentators opposed to the result. The author concludes that this decision has rendered the sixth amendment right to counsel of choice an insubstantial right and damaged the integrity of the adversary system in our courts.

The Truth About Massiah, James J. Tomkovicz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

First, the Article will summarize the Justice Department's discussion of the Massiah right to counsel and the exclusion of evidence under Massiah. Next, it will evaluate the nature of the Report and the character of legal scholarship. Finally, it will explore the substantive debate over Massiah. In that section, the Article will point out the matters on which the DOJ and I agree, will attempt to frame the fundamental questions raised by the Massiah doctrine, and will investigate potential sources of answers to those constitutional questions. Ultimately, it will provide the answers that I prefer, explaining the premises …

Allowing A Child Abuse Victim To Testify Via One-Way Closed-Circuit Television Does Not Violate A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Right If The Trial Court Specifically Finds Such A Procedure Necessary To Protect The Child's Welfare., Lisa R. Miller

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Maryland v. Craig, the Supreme Court held allowing child abuse victims to testify via one-way closed-circuit television does not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right if the trial court finds the procedure necessary to protect the child’s welfare. Although “confront” has generally been interpreted to mean “face-to-face,” on occasion, it may yield to public policy considerations and the compelling necessities of particular cases. The original purpose of the confrontation right was to prevent the accusers in a criminal proceeding from using ex parte affidavits or depositions against a defendant, in lieu of personal testimony. The Craig …

Attorney As Interpreter: A Return To Babble, Bill Piatt

Faculty Articles

Attorneys should not represent their clients and simultaneously act as interpreters. The harm far outweighs the benefit when an attorney acts as an interpreter for a client in litigation. In 1970, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Negron v. New York determined that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause requires that non-English speaking defendants be informed of their right to simultaneous interpretation of proceedings at the government's expense, however the use of an interpreter is still at the trial court's discretion.

Courts will ordinarily not appoint an interpreter in the absence of a request to do so, but the failure …

Court-Appointed Attorneys: Old Problems And New Solutions, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Gideon V. Wainwright A Quarter-Century Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In a brief working paper sent to all conference participants, Professor Burt Neuborne suggested that we might consider several themes, among them "Gideon Celebrated," "Gideon Fulfilled," and "Gideon Betrayed." I think these are useful headings.