Law Commons^™

Federal Pleading Standards In State Court, Marcus Gadson

Michigan Law Review

Most state courts cannot follow both their state constitutions and federal pleading standards. Even if they could, policy considerations unique to states compel state courts to reject federal pleading standards. This is because federal courts have changed pleading standards to allow judges to make factual determinations on a motion to dismiss and to require more factual detail in complaints. While scholars have vigorously debated whether these changes are wise, just, and permissible under the federal rules and the Constitution, they have ignored the even more important questions of whether state courts can and should adopt those pleading standards. The oversight …

The Right To A Well-Rested Jury, Caroline Howe

Michigan Law Review

The vast amount of control that state trial judges exercise over the dynamics of their courtrooms is well established. The length of trial days and jury deliberations, however, has received little scholarly attention. Longstanding research has conclusively established the disruptive effects of sleep deprivation on many of the mental facilities necessary for juries to competently fulfill their duties. By depriving juries of sleep, trial judges may be compromising the fair rights of criminal defendants for the sake of efficiency. This Note argues that trial judges must use their discretion to ensure juries are well-rested, keeping jurors’ needs in mind. Further, …

Punishment But Not A Penalty? Punitive Damages Are Impermissible Under Foreign Substantive Law, Paul A. Hoversten

Michigan Law Review

It is a well-established principle that no court applies the penal laws of another sovereign. But what exactly is a penal law? According to Judge Cardozo, a penal law effects “vindication of the public justice” rather than “reparation to one aggrieved.” Although courts have historically treated punitive damages as a purely civil remedy, that attitude has shifted over time. Modern American punitive damages serve not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant on behalf of the whole community. Therefore, when courts rely on foreign substantive law to impose punitive damages, they arguably violate the well-established principle that no …

Federal Review Of State Criminal Convictions: A Structural Approach To Adequacy Doctrine, Eve Brensike Primus

Michigan Law Review

Modern state postconviction review systems feature procedural labyrinths so complicated and confusing that indigent defendants have no realistic prospect of complying with the rules. When defendants predictably fail to navigate these mazes, state and federal courts deem their claims procedurally defaulted and refuse to consider those claims on their merits. As a result, systemic violations of criminal procedure rights—like the right to effective counsel—persist without judicial correction.

But the law contains a tool that, if properly adapted, could bring these systemic problems to the attention of federal courts: procedural adequacy. Procedural adequacy doctrine gives federal courts the power to ignore …

Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht

Michigan Law Review

Cullen v. Pinholster foreclosed federal courts from considering new evidence when reviewing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) petitions for claims previously adjudicated on the merits in state court. This decision has a particularly adverse effect on petitioners whose state habeas counsel left an incomplete or undeveloped record. This Note discusses strategies for victims of ineffective state habeas counsel to avoid the hostile mandate of Pinholster. It argues that, in light of Martinez v. Ryan’s recognition of the importance of counsel in initialreview collateral proceedings, courts should be wary of dismissing claims left un- or underdeveloped by ineffective state habeas counsel. It …

Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill

Michigan Law Review

Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the similarity between the language …

The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt

Michigan Law Review

The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …

Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose

Michigan Law Review

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial at both the state and federal levels. Attempts to increase funding for indigent defense by bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims have been thwarted by high procedural and substantive hurdles, and consequently these attempts have failed to bring significant change. This Note argues that, because ineffective assistance of counsel litigation is most likely a dead end for system-wide reform, indigent defenders should challenge the constitutionality of underfunding based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial. Existing speedy trial jurisprudence suggests that the overworking and furloughing of …

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan

Michigan Law Review

Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael Steven Green

Michigan Law Review

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal court interpreting state law must decide as the state's supreme court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must decide as the sister state's supreme court would. Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming that …

The Path To Habeas Corpus Narrows: Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1), Sharad Sushil Khandelwal

Michigan Law Review

The enforcement of the U.S. Constitution within the criminal justice system is an odd subspecies of constitutional law. In areas other than criminal law, federal courts act as the ultimate guarantors of constitutional rights by providing remedies whenever violations occur. Criminal law, however, is different by necessity; the bulk of criminal justice occurs in state courthouses, leaving constitutional compliance largely to state judges. The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, may review these decisions if it chooses, but a writ of certiorari can be elusive, especially given the Court's shrinking docket. After World War II, however, this feature of criminal constitutional …

Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …

Electing Justice, Sol Wachtler

Michigan Law Review

A Review of In Pursuit of Justice: Reflections of a State Supreme Court Justice by Joseph R. Grodin

Errors In Good Faith: The Leon Exception Six Years Later, David Clark Esseks

Michigan Law Review

Given this vast literature on the good faith exception, little room appears to exist for additional commentary on the propriety of the decision, its theoretical weaknesses or strengths, or what further changes in constitutional criminal procedure it forebodes. This Note will not add to the many voices complaining of the Court's misconstrual of the grounding of the exclusionary rule, nor of its crabbed notion of deterrence. Instead, it accepts, arguendo, the propriety of the exception and its underlying purpose, and then examines the six-year experience with the revised rule. The proliferation of reported applications of the good faith exception …

Corporate Auctions And Directors' Fiduciary Duties: A Third-Generation Business Judgment Rule, Steven G. Bradbury

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes a rationale and a methodology for applying the business judgment rule when directors resist a hostile bid during the auction phase of a control contest. Part I examines the changes that occur in the responsibilities of target directors when a corporate auction is initiated. This Part describes the Unocal business judgment rule test and discusses its usefulness in the auction phase of a takeover. While the test requires modification if it is to complement effectively the auction-phase duties announced in Revlon, this Part suggests that the business judgment rule continues to be relevant and important during …

Federal Court Review Of Arbitrary State Court Decisions, David T. Azrin

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Note argues that the Thompson, Logan, and Hicks cases can be read narrowly to deal primarily with concern about protecting specific constitutional guarantees such as criminal procedural protections, equal protection guarantees, and first amendment freedoms. Arguably, in order to avoid dealing explicitly with the broader constitutional questions raised by the state decisions, the Court reversed the state decisions as arbitrary interpretations of state law. Part II argues that the rule against arbitrary state decisions suggested by Thompson, Logan, and Hicks is incompatible with federalism because it interferes with states' ability to develop law over state …

The Wrong Side Of The Tracks: A Revolutionary Rediscovery Of The Common Law Tradition Of Fairness In The Struggle Against Inequality, Gregory A. Kalscheur

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Wrong Side of the Tracks: A Revolutionary Rediscovery of the Common Law Tradition of Fairness in the Struggle Against Inequality by Charles M. Haar and Daniel W. Fessler

Change In The Availability Of Federal Habeas Corpus: Its Significance For State Prisoners And State Correctional Programs, Franklin J. Remington

Michigan Law Review

Expressions of dissatisfaction with state prisoner use of federal writs of habeas corpus continue. Recently Attorney General Meese was reported as telling the Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit: "[M]ost of the writs filed today were frivolous 'recreational activities' [by inmates whom he referred to as 'lawyers in penitentiaries'] designed to harass federal authorities." Referring to the Reagan administration's proposal pending in the United States Senate to restrict habeas corpus, Mr. Meese said the bill "would preserve the great writ for appropriate cases."

Repeated, but as yet unsuccessful, efforts have been made in the Congress to narrow the scope of …

State Constitutional Law: Federalism In The Common Law Tradition, Ellen A. Peters

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Developments in State Constitutional Law edited by Bradley D. McGraw

Cameras In The Courtroom: Guidelines For State Criminal Trials, Nancy T. Gardner

Michigan Law Review

This Note analyzes the conflicting interests involved in televising state criminal trials and proposes a model set of guidelines for consideration by states that decide to permit electronic media in their courtrooms. The Note favors restrictions on broadcasters once in the courtroom and advocates that the defendant's right to a fair trial receive more scrupulous protection than the broadcast media's interest in attendance and the public's "right to know." Part I presents the constitutional principles with which any set of guidelines must comply. Part II analyzes the policy considerations that should guide the formulation of state guidelines, and concludes that …

On The Threshold Of Wainwright V Sykes: Federal Habeas Court Scrutiny Of State Procedural Rules And Rulings, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines specific problems which stand on the threshold of Wainwright v. Sykes. Resolution of these problems is necessary to determine whether a state ruling is based upon an adequate state procedural ground, requiring application of the cause-and-prejudice test before habeas review will be permitted. Part I analyzes the rationale for the rule of Wainwright v. Sykes as well as its historical underpinnings. Part II examines the treatment of state court decisions that are based both on a defaulted claim and, in the alternative, on the merits of that claim. This Part concludes that decisions containing such alternative …

Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court's post-conviction cases cannot be extended to cases involving jury acquittal and that federal reprosecution after state jury acquittal violates the double jeopardy clause. One can give meaning to the clause, Part Iexplains, only by reference to its underlying constitutional values.Part II suggests that these values, while possibly compatible with federal prosecution after a state conviction, cannot countenance reprosecution after a jury acquittal. Part III proposes that courts determine whether such reprosecution is appropriate by applying the Blockhurger same offense standard: Two offenses are the same unless each requires proof of …

American Trial Judges, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of American Trial Judges by John Paul Ryan, Allan Ashman, Bruce D. Sales, and Sandra Shane-DuBow

Survival Of Rights Of Action After Corporate Merger, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Once a corporation ceases to exist, most courts permit neither primary nor derivative suits to be brought in its name. If a merger precipitates that corporate demise, courts usually hold that standing to sue, like other assets of the "merged" corporation, passes to the surviving corporation. This Note ponders the merit of that rule of passage.

Section I categorizes the cases defining the rule of passage. Some courts have steadfastly adhered to the rule and denied standing to the merged corporation's shareholders. Other courts, fearing that the rule would preclude meritorious actions, have created exceptions allowing these shareholders to sue …

The Evolution Of State Supreme Courts, Robert A. Kagan, Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanton Wheeler

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article describes in broad quantitative terms the changing relationship between the caseload of supreme courts and the population of the states in which these courts sit. Part II examines the various means states used to control supreme court caseloads, the political problems involved, and the types of courts that have resulted. Part III presents evidence that changes in court organization in response to caseload pressure are accompanied by changes in the kinds of cases state supreme courts hear, the style of their opinions, and the results of the cases.

Adjudication Of Federal Causes Of Action In State Court, Martin H. Redish, John E. Muench

Michigan Law Review

The first section of this article considers the power of state courts to hear federal cases. Since it is now well established that state courts have the constitutional power to adjudicate federal causes of action if Congress so desires, the significant questions concern the method by which the judiciary is to decipher congressional intent. Although the courts have no difficulty where Congress has explicitly addressed the issue of state court jurisdiction, problems do arise in situations where Congress has remained silent on the question. The first section critically examines the traditional criteria employed by the courts for determining congressional intent …

Enforceability Of Religious Law In Secular Courts--It's Kosher, But Is It Constitutional?, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In several different contexts-for example, in enforcing contracts that refer to religious law or in enforcing secular laws that use religious terminology-secular courts may be called upon to apply and even to interpret laws established by religious bodies. The limitations imposed by the first amendment on the courts in these areas will be discussed here in the specific context of Judaism. It is the thesis of this Note that the courts may not be as constrained in enforcing laws of religious bodies and in resolving disputes about those laws as would appear at first glance.

Fraudulent Conveyances In The Conflict Of Laws: Easy Cases May Make Bad Law, Albert A. Ehrenzweig, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

It has been said that hard cases often make bad law. The recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals in James v. Powell suggests that easy cases, too, may make bad law-especially where a scholarly judge ventures beyond the demands of the case before him.

Substantive Interests And The Jurisdiction Of State Courts, Paul D. Carrington, James A. Martin

Michigan Law Review

Pennoyer indeed is dead. The primitive ritual of service of process could not survive as a general solution to the problem of state power over individuals. Committed as we are to the idea that the judicial power should be exercised in a manner that is responsive to the common welfare, we could not suffer the limits of power to be determined irrationally by the random success of process servers. Offering only the virtues of simplicity and economy, the ritualistic method had to yield in order to make the judicial power a sharper and more effective tool with which to pursue …