Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Compulsion (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Miranda v. Arizona (2)
- Self-incrimination (2)
- Chavez v. Martinez (1)
-
- Civil procedure (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Courtroom (1)
- Crawford (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Federal (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Film (1)
- Forum (1)
- Infringement (1)
- Interrogation process (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Patent (1)
- Patent Law (1)
- Patent venue statute (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Police (1)
- Right to silence (1)
- Scalia (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Confronting Crawford: Justice Scalia, The Judicial Method, And The Limits(?) Of Originalism, Gary S. Lawson
Confronting Crawford: Justice Scalia, The Judicial Method, And The Limits(?) Of Originalism, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington, which revamped (and even revolutionized) interpretation and application of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, just might be Justice Scalia’s most important majority opinion, for three reasons. First, its impact on the criminal justice system has been immense, and even if the case is overruled in the near future, as seems quite possible, that effect will still likely exceed the concrete impact of any other opinion that he wrote. Second, and more importantly, Crawford emphasizes the trite but crucial point that methodology matters. Crawford has generally been a boon to criminal defendants and a bane to prosecutors. When …
Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, David Rossman
Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, David Rossman
Faculty Scholarship
The regime created by Miranda v. Arizona is at this point in its history bankrupt both intellectually and in terms of practical effect. Justices who have joined the Court after Miranda have cut back its scope by stingy interpretations of the doctrine’s reach and effect. In practice, few suspects actually benefit from the way Miranda is now implemented in police stations and courtrooms. Given the failure of Miranda’s promise, can we envision an alternative? Here is one that may be politically palatable and doctrinally feasible, largely adopted from English practice:
1. Police would give the same Miranda warnings that they …
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
Before Miranda was decided, the Court had not squarely confronted the issue of when a violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs. Over fifty years ago, the Court acknowledged that the right against self-incrimination has two interrelated facets: The Government may not use compulsion to elicit self-incriminating statements; and the Government may not permit the use in a criminal trial of self-incriminating statements elicited by compulsion. Back then, the “conceptual difficulty of pinpointing” when a constitutional violation occurs — when the Government employs compulsion, or when the compelled statement is actually admitted at trial — was unimportant. Chavez v. Martinez forced …
The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute, Paul Gugliuzza, Megan M. La Belle
The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute, Paul Gugliuzza, Megan M. La Belle
Faculty Scholarship
Legal doctrines developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are often derided as “exceptionalist,” particularly on issues of procedure. The court’s interpretation of the venue statute for patent infringement suits seems, at first glance, to fit that mold. According to the Federal Circuit, the statute places few constraints on the plaintiff’s choice of forum when suing corporate defendants. This permissive venue rule has lead critics to suggest that the court is, once again, outside the mainstream. The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods would seem to indicate that those critics …
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …
American Trial Films And The Popular Culture Of Law, Jessica Silbey
American Trial Films And The Popular Culture Of Law, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
The American trial and American cinema share certain epistemological tendencies. Both stake claims to an authoritative form of knowledge based on the indubitable quality of observable phenomena. And both are preoccupied with sustaining the authority that underlies the knowledge produced by visual perception. The American trial and cinematic form also increasingly share cultural space. Although the trial film (otherwise known as the courtroom drama) is as old as the medium of film, the continuing popularity of the legal drama centered on a courtroom verdict suggests more than a trend. The inherent affinities between law and film not only produce enduring …