Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Postconviction relief (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- American Jury System (1)
- Armed Career Criminal Act (1)
- Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1)
-
- Capital punishment (1)
- Children (1)
- Coersion (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Convictions (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Custodial suspects (1)
- Defendants (1)
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Gatehouses (1)
- Johnson v. United States (1)
- Judges and jurors (1)
- Juries (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Pennsylvania (1)
- Pizzi (William T.) (1)
- Police interrogations (1)
- Postconviction proceedings (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Probative value (1)
- Prosecution (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Officiating Removal, Leah Litman
Officiating Removal, Leah Litman
Articles
For the last several years, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has quietly attempted to curtail capital defendants' representation in state postconviction proceedings. In 2011, various justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court began to call for federally funded community defender organizations to stop representing capital defendants in state postconviction proceedings. The justices argued, among other things, that the organizations' representation of capital defendants constituted impermissible federal interference with state governmental processes and burdened state judicial resources. The court also alleged the community defender organizations were in violation of federal statutes, which only authorized the organizations to assist state prisoners in federal, but …
A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar
Articles
I am indebted to Professor William Pizzi for remembering—and praising—the “Gatehouses and Mansions” essay I wrote fifty years ago. A great many articles and books have been written about Miranda. So it is nice to be remembered for an article published a year before that famous case was ever decided.
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
The American Jury System: A Synthetic Overview, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
This essay is intended to provide in brief compass a review of much that is known about the American jury system, including the jury’s historical origins, its political role, controversies over its role and structure, its performance, both absolutely and in comparison to judges and mixed tribunals, and proposals for improving the jury system. The essay is informed throughout by 50 years of research on the jury system, beginning with the 1965 publication of Kalven and Zeisel’s seminal book, The American Jury. The political importance of the jury is seen to lie more in the jury’s status as a one …
Residual Impact: Resentencing Implications Of Johnson's Potential Ruling On Acca's Constitutionality, Leah Litman
Residual Impact: Resentencing Implications Of Johnson's Potential Ruling On Acca's Constitutionality, Leah Litman
Articles
In January 2015, the Supreme Court directed the parties to brief and argue an additional question in Johnson v. United States: “Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague.” The order represents an unusual move because the defendant had not raised the vagueness issue and the Court issued the order after it had already heard argument on the question raised in the petition for certiorari. Commentators therefore view the order as a signal that the Court will likely invalidate the residual clause. This decision will have been several years …
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
Articles
This Essay provides a solution to the conundrum of statements made by very young children and offered against an accused in a criminal prosecution. Currently prevailing doctrine allows one of three basic outcomes. First, in some cases the child testifies at trial. But this is not always feasible, and when it is, cross-examination is a poor method for determining the truth. Second, evidence of the child's statement may be excluded, which denies the adjudicative process of potentially valuable information. Third, the evidence may be admitted without the child testifying at trial, which leaves the accused with no practical ability to …