Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Kamisar (Yale) (9)
- Miranda v. Arizona (7)
- Admissibility (6)
- United States Supreme Court (6)
- Confrontation Clause (5)
-
- Crawford v. Washington (5)
- Cross-examination (5)
- Ohio v. Roberts (5)
- Sixth Amendment (5)
- Testimonial (5)
- Testimony (5)
- University of Michigan Law School (5)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (4)
- Exclusions (4)
- Hearsay (4)
- Law and Economics (4)
- Reliability (4)
- Searches (4)
- Technology (4)
- Witnesses (4)
- Confessions (3)
- History (3)
- Katz v. United States (3)
- Custodial interrogations (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Kerr (Orin) (2)
- Police (2)
- Seizures (2)
- Students (2)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 28 of 28
Full-Text Articles in Law
Screening, Plea Bargains And The Innocent Problem, Oren Gazal
Screening, Plea Bargains And The Innocent Problem, Oren Gazal
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
Courts in common law countries reject plea-agreements only when the agreed upon sentence is seen as exceedingly lenient. This judicial intervention is designed to ensure that plea-bargaining does not undermine deterrence. Many legal scholars argue against this policy, claiming that courts should prohibit plea-bargaining all together. They argue that the plea-bargaining system increases the risk of wrongful convictions. Economists often criticize this judicial intervention as well, but for a different reason. Rather than advocating the abolition of plea-bargaining, many economists argue that the courts should accept all plea-agreements without review. They claim that plea-bargaining can help ensure an efficient use …
The Forgotten Constitutional Right To Present A Defense And Its Impact On The Acceptance Of Responsibility-Entrapment Debate, Katrice L. Bridges
The Forgotten Constitutional Right To Present A Defense And Its Impact On The Acceptance Of Responsibility-Entrapment Debate, Katrice L. Bridges
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that Section 3El.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines must be interpreted to allow defendants who claim entrapment at trial to remain eligible for the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. To interpret Section 3El.1 in any other way would run afoul of defendants' constitutional right to present a defense. Part I argues that the entrapment defense does not put factual guilt at issue; instead the entrapment defense challenges whether the statute should apply to the defendant's conduct. Part II contends that the legislative intent in creating the sentencing guidelines in general and the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment in particular are furthered by requiring …
Corporate Defendants And The Protections Of Criminal Procedure: An Economic Analysis, Vikramaditya S. Khanna
Corporate Defendants And The Protections Of Criminal Procedure: An Economic Analysis, Vikramaditya S. Khanna
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
Corporations are frequently treated as “persons” under the law. One of the fundamental questions associated with this treatment is whether corporations should receive the same Constitutional protections and guarantees as natural persons. In particular, should corporations receive the Constitutional protections of Criminal Procedure? After all, corporations cannot be sent to jail so the sanctions they face are essentially the same as in civil proceedings. If so, then why not have the same procedural protections for corporate defendants in civil and criminal cases? Little scholarly analysis has focused on this issue from an economic perspective and this article aims to fill …
The Market For Criminal Justice: Federalism, Crime Control And Jurisdictional Competition, Doron Teichman
The Market For Criminal Justice: Federalism, Crime Control And Jurisdictional Competition, Doron Teichman
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
For the most part, the United States has a decentralized criminal justice system. State legislatures define the majority of crimes and set out the punishments for those crimes. In addition, the enforcement of criminal laws lies, in most cases, in the hands of local law enforcement agencies. This article points out how this decentralized structure drives local jurisdictions to harshen their criminal justice system in order to displace crime to neighboring jurisdictions. More precisely, local jurisdictions can attempt to displace crime in two distinct ways. First, they can raise the expected sanction to a level that is higher than that …
Sex, Shame, And The Law: An Economic Perspective On Megan's Law, Doron Teichman
Sex, Shame, And The Law: An Economic Perspective On Megan's Law, Doron Teichman
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
This Article focuses on the question, how should policymakers aiming to minimize the cost of sanctioning utilize legal and nonlegal sanctions when designing a system of criminal sanctions. After presenting the general economic case for the use of nonlegal sanctions the article turns to present a model of shaming, which unlike existing models, incorporates the endogenous effects of legal and nonlegal sanctions. This model demonstrates that tailoring an efficient regime that combines legal and nonlegal sanctions might be more difficult than previously perceived by law and economics scholars. A specific case study presented in this article is of the current …
Pleas' Progress, Stephanos Bibas
Pleas' Progress, Stephanos Bibas
Michigan Law Review
George Fisher's new book, Plea Bargaining's Triumph, is really three books in one. The first part is a careful, detailed explanation of how and why plea bargaining exploded in Middlesex County, Massachusetts in the nineteenth century. This part is the fruit of an impressive amount of original research in Massachusetts court records and newspaper archives. The second part of the book looks more broadly at other academic histories of plea bargaining in England, California, and New York. It explains how the forces that produced plea bargaining in Middlesex County likewise contributed to plea bargaining's rise elsewhere. The final part …
Justice In The Time Of Terror, Sharon L. Davies
Justice In The Time Of Terror, Sharon L. Davies
Michigan Law Review
On my drive into work recently I found myself behind a Ford pickup truck and noticed its bumper sticker: "When the going gets tough, I get a machine gun." Not a doctor. Not a counselor or mediator. Not a shelter for cover. Not the wisdom of a favored advisor or a proven friend. But a machine gun. How odd, I thought, to prefer a weapon incapable of identifying with any precision, any careful thought, where the enemy of the wielder of it might actually be hidden. A weapon as apt to injure non-targets as targets. A weapon mindless of its …
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
Michigan Law Review
Imagine for a moment that it is the year 2020. An American company has developed a mind-reading device, called the "brain wave recorder" ("BWR"). The BWR is a highly sensitive instrument that detects electrical impulses from any brain within ten feet of the machine. Though previously thought impossible, the BWR can discern the following information about the target individual: (1) whether he or she is happy, sad, anxious, depressed, or irritable; (2) whether he or she is even slightly sexually aroused; (3) whether he or she is taking any medication (and if so, what the medication is); (4) if a …
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
To one who values federalism, federal preemption of state law may significantly threaten the autonomy and core regulatory authority of The Supreme Court recently considered whether a1mmg an infrared thermal imaging device at a suspect's home can violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States announced a new and comprehensive rule: the government's warrantless use of senseenhancing technology that is "not in general use" violates the Fourth Amendment when it yields "details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Justice Scalia's majority opinion acknowledged that the Court's rule was not needed to resolve the case …
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Michigan Law Review
Katz v. United States is the king of Supreme Court surveillance cases. Written in 1967, it struck down the earlier regime of property rules, declaring that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The concurrence by Justice Harlan announced the new regime - court-issued warrants are required where there is an infringement on a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Together with the companion case Berger v. New York, Katz has stood for a grand conception of the Fourth Amendment as a bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance. Professor Orin Kerr, in his excellent article, shows that …
Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire, Orin S. Kerr
Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
I thank Sherry Colb and Peter Swire for devoting their time and considerable talents to responding to my article, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution. I will conclude with a few comments.
A Look Back On A Half-Century Of Teaching, Writing And Speaking About Criminal Law And Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
A Look Back On A Half-Century Of Teaching, Writing And Speaking About Criminal Law And Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
Articles
When I look back at my academic career, I realize that, as hard as I tried to plan things, various events often overrode my plans.
Yale Kamisar: The Enemy Of Injustice, Welsh S. White
Yale Kamisar: The Enemy Of Injustice, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
In the summer of 1978, Duke Law School hosted a conference in which a variety of speakers offered perspectives on Constitutional Criminal Procedure. One of the speakers argued that the Warren Court's criminal-procedure revolution created a backlash that ultimately made things worse for criminal defendants. In order to dramatize his point, he suggested, "Yale Kamisar is the enemy." When that speaker had finished, the Conference Moderator began his response by stating, "First of all, Yale Kamisar is not the enemy of anything, except injustice."
Face To Face With The Right Of Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman
Face To Face With The Right Of Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman
Other Publications
This article is an edited excerpt from the amicus curiae brief filed in Crawford v. Washington, heard before the United States Supreme Court on November 10, 2003. Prof. Friedman wrote the brief for the Court.
Yale Kamisar The Teacher, Jeffrey S. Lehman
Yale Kamisar The Teacher, Jeffrey S. Lehman
Michigan Law Review
I first heard Yale Kamisar's name in the spring of 1977 while deciding where to go to law school. The then Dean of Admissions at Michigan suggested I call a graduate practicing law near me in upstate New York. The graduate eloquently endorsed Michigan. But what impressed me most was his statement, "When you go to Michigan you must be sure to take a course from a professor named Yale Kamisar. That course changed the way I thought about law. Every day we'd go to class and talk about interesting cases and I was always confused. But at the very …
The Crawford Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
The Crawford Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), is one of the most dramatic Evidence cases in recent history, radically transforming the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Crawford is a very positive development, but leaves many open questions - and forces Evidence teachers to rethink how they teach hearsay and confrontation.
Tribute To Yale Kamisar, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Tribute To Yale Kamisar, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Michigan Law Review
When the editors of this issue told me of Professor Yale Kamisar's decision to retire from full-time teaching after a near half century of law faculty service, two thoughts came immediately to mind. First, I thought of the large loss to Michigan students unable to attend his classes and to faculty colleagues at Ann Arbor unable routinely to engage his bright mind. Second, I thought it altogether right for the Michigan Law Review to publish an issue honoring one of the Law School's most prized professors. When invited to write a tribute, I could not resist saying yes.
Yale Kamisar: Warrior Scholar, Francis A. Allen
Yale Kamisar: Warrior Scholar, Francis A. Allen
Michigan Law Review
My association with Yale Kamisar dates back to the 1950s. At that time I became aware of the interesting publications of a young faculty member at the University of Minnesota. The articles were well done, most of them dealing with the Supreme Court's notable expansion of constitutional doctrine relating to criminal procedure, then at full tide, a field in which I also was writing. In addition, Yale had published a remarkable article on the subject of euthanasia, impressive for the thoroughness of its research and the clarity and force of its argument. Fortunately, I decided to write to Yale and …
Saying Goodbye To A Legend: A Tribute To Yale Kamisar - My Mentor, Teacher, And Friend, Eve Brensike Primus
Saying Goodbye To A Legend: A Tribute To Yale Kamisar - My Mentor, Teacher, And Friend, Eve Brensike Primus
Michigan Law Review
I remember it as though it was yesterday - dozens of students filing into Hutchins Hall for their first criminal procedure class. The legendary Yale Kamisar walked briskly to the front of the room, his upper body moving first slightly forward and then ever so slightly backward in almost a rocking manner. He carried nothing except for a two-inch black notebook, tattered at the edges and marked with brightly colored tabs protruding from each page. Paying no attention to the hundreds of eyes fixed on his every move, he dropped the notebook on the podium, stepped up to the blackboard, …
Yale Kamisar: Collaborator, Colleague, And Friend, Jesse H. Choper
Yale Kamisar: Collaborator, Colleague, And Friend, Jesse H. Choper
Michigan Law Review
Yale Kamisar was absent when I was first interviewed by a number of faculty members from the University of Minnesota Law School where he was then teaching. These sessions took place between Christmas and New Year's in 1959 (when I was a third-year student at Penn), at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, that year in St. Louis. Yale had planned to be there, I was told, but cancelled because he was behind schedule in completing an article. So while I didn't meet him on that occasion, I surely learned what would ring familiar many times …
Publications By Professor Yale Kamisar, Michigan Law Review
Publications By Professor Yale Kamisar, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A bibliography of publications by Yale Kamisar.
The "Routine Traffic Stop" From Start To Finish: Too Much "Routine," Not Enough Fourth Amendment, Wayne R. Lafave
The "Routine Traffic Stop" From Start To Finish: Too Much "Routine," Not Enough Fourth Amendment, Wayne R. Lafave
Michigan Law Review
Yale Kamisar, about which I have said too much elsewhere in this issue of the Review, could rightly be called "Mr. Confessions," for he has not only authored books and a host of articles on the subject of police interrogation, but for years has been printing Miranda cards in his basement and selling them to police departments all across the nation. Moreover, he may be the only law professor in the country who has both personally coerced a confession and had a confession coerced out of him. As Kamisar has himself noted, my own "intellectual sandbox" has been the …
Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii
Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
It is no exaggeration to say that Yale Kamisar was present at the creation of Miranda v. Arizona. To be sure, the seeds of Miranda had been sown in earlier cases, particularly Escobedo v. Illinois, but Escobedo was a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case. Professor Kamisar first saw the potential for extending the theory of Escob edo to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Escob edo theorized that a healthy criminal justice system requires that the accused know their rights and are encouraged to exercise them. The Escobedo Court read history to teach that no system …
A Deadly Dilemma: Choices By Attorneys Representing "Innocent" Capital Defendants, Welsh S. White
A Deadly Dilemma: Choices By Attorneys Representing "Innocent" Capital Defendants, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
A lawyer who represents a capital defendant with a strong innocence claim must allocate her resources between the separate guilt and penalty phases of the capital case. Expending resources in preparation for a penalty trial may result in less attention to securing the acquittal on the capital charge at the guilt trial that would make the penalty phase moot. But focusing primarily on proving the defendant's innocence at the guilt trial means less preparation in the case of a guilty verdict. Once a defendant is convicted of a capital offense, a lawyer must also make strategic decisions about the penalty …
Postscript: Another Look At Patane And Seibert, The 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases, Yale Kamisar
Postscript: Another Look At Patane And Seibert, The 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Some months after I finished writing an article that, inter alia, discussed the lower court opinions in Patane and Seibert (an article that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journa),1 the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in those cases.2 In Patane, a 5-4 majority held admissible a Glock pistol located as a result of a failure to comply with Miranda. In Seibert, a 5-4 majority agreed with the state court that a "second confession," one obtained after the police had deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique designed to undermine the Miranda warnings, was inadmissible. 3 In Patane, Justice …
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court radically transformed its doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Craitiord is a very positive development, restoring to its central position one of the basic protections of the common law system of criminal justice. But the decision leaves many open questions, and all lawyers involved in the criminal justice process will have to adjust to the new regime that it creates. This article outlines and summarizes the problems with the law as it stood before Crait/brd. It then explains the theoretical …
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception. This article argues that this framework should be abandoned. The clause should not be regarded …