Law Commons^™

Who Amended The Amendment?, John Olsson

ConLawNOW

The purpose and intent of the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution has been repeatedly distorted by textualist misinterpretation, orchestrated by elements of the judiciary more concerned with preserving the power of government than the rights of individual defendants. As a result, it is hard to know what the Amendment stands for, since it has been successively re‑interpreted and, effectively, amended for at least the past 80 years and possibly longer. The author argues that it is time for courts to return to the spirit of the laws that actuated the Bill of Rights over two hundred years ago, and …

Why It Is Not Unreasonable For The Police To Refuse To Provide A Copy Of The Search Warrant At The Outset Of The Search, M. Jackson Jones M.S.

ConLawNOW

This article presents numerous reasons why it would not be unreasonable for the police to refuse to provide an occupant of the premises a copy of the search warrant at the outset of the search when an occupant of the premises is present and poses no threat to the officers’ safe and effective performance of their mission. First, neither the plain text of the Fourth Amendment nor the plain text of Federal Rule 41 requires it. Second, there are numerous constitutional and statutory protections that ensure the executing official does not wrongfully execute the warrant.

In essence, requiring the police …

Crawford's Last Stand? What Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts Means For The Confrontation Clause And For Criminal Trials, Elizabeth Stevens

ConLawNOW

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts heralds a dramatic change for Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and for most criminal trials. Crawford v. Washington held that “testimonial” statements were admissible only if the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Melendez-Diaz applied this rule to forensic evidence, holding that certificates of analysis – used in a drug trail to prove the nature and weight of the proscribed substances, and sworn to and signed by the analysts who performed the tests – are testimonial.

This article analyzes Melendez-Diaz’s implications for the Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and for the …

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach

Akron Law Review

The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.

Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt

Akron Law Review

After the decisions in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), which revealed the Supreme Court's solicitude of the constitutional rights of adults, it seemed improbable that the lower courts would long be permitted to continue ignoring the constitutional rights of juveniles. Thus the decision in the principal case, which represents a breakthrough in the assurance of a fair hearing to minors, comes as no surprise. The case holds that under the Fourteenth Amendment a juvenile has a right to notice of …

Admissibility Of In-Court Identifications; Unnecessarily Suggestive Out-Of-Court Identifications; Due Process; Manson V. Brathwaite, Frank A. Barbieri Jr.

Akron Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Manson v. Brathwaite, a substantial amount of confusion existed concerning the judicial test which was to be applied to in-court and out-of-court criminal identification procedures. The Court, in the case of Stovall v. Denno, had first set forth a two stage test for determining whether such procedures were violative of due process. While later cases were somewhat unclear, the Stovall test continued to be used. When the Court again confronted the identification procedure question in the case of Neil v. Biggers, a new "totality of the circumstances" test was set forth. …

"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins

Akron Law Review

On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.

Neo-Federalism, Popular Sovereignity, And The Criminal Law, Terrance M. Messonnier

Akron Law Review

The first area is the substantive criminal law, especially at the federal level. In the following pages, this Article will discuss, from a Neo-Federalist perspective, the wide variety of laws found mostly in Title 18 of the United States Code that form our federal criminal law. This Article will suggest that there are both constitutional and pragmatic needs to reexamine what behavior should be punished on a federal level.

The second area is the law regarding criminal procedures. This Article will suggest, from the perspective of Popular Sovereignty, that the current trend to jealously guard jurisdictional prerogatives is not constitutionally …

The Shift Of The Balance Of Advantage In Criminal Litigation: The Case Of Mr. Simpson, David Robinson Jr.

Akron Law Review

The intense public interest in the extraordinary trial and acquittal of Mr. O.J. Simpson provides an appropriate occasion to look at the criminal justice system more generally, to note where we have been in the balance of advantage between prosecution and defense, where we are now, and where, perhaps, we should be.