Law Commons^™

Preventative Pretrial Detention And The Failure Of Interest-Balancing Approaches To Due Process, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

This article, echoing Highmore's treatise of 1783, maintains that neither a legitimate nor a very important governmental interest can justify preventive detention in the absence of significant proof of past wrongdoing or an inability to control one's behavior. Both the Supreme Court's neglect of this issue and Congress' similar neglect in the preventive detention provisions of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 reveal the extent to which cost-benefit analysis has captured American law and threatened core concepts of individual dignity.

The article does not oppose all forms of preventive pretrial detention. To the contrary, it recognizes that the detention …

Colorado V. Spring, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Wimberly V. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission Of Missouri, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Mccleskey V. Kemp, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Kelly V. Robinson, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Pennsylvania V. Ritchie, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: Not The "Expressed Juice Of The Woolly-Headed Thistle", Keith A. Fabi

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unitary Criminal Proceeding: Denial Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Future Irreparable Harm: A Ground For Release In Federal Extradition Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

18 U.S.C. § 3501 And The Admissibility Of Confessions Obtained During Unnecessary Prearraignment Delay, Matthew W. Frank

Michigan Law Review

Part I thus argues that the admissibility of post-sixth-hour confessions is governed by Mallory, under which a voluntary confession is inadmissible if, but only if, it follows a period of unnecessary delay. Part II addresses a possible objection to this conclusion - namely, that, with limited exceptions, subsection 350l(c) renders all post-sixth hour confessions inadmissible without regard to the reasonableness of the prearraignment delay. This interpretation is derived by negative implication from the proviso in subsection 350l(c) and would require courts to suppress confessions even though there has been no unnecessary delay, and even though the confessions would be …

Interlocutory Appeal Of Preindictment Suppression Motions Under Rule 41 ( E ), Clifford A. Godiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that preindictment rulings denying 41(e) motions are not immediately appealable. Part I discusses decisions that mandate dismissal of such appeals for want of jurisdiction. Part II examines the policy rationales behind these precedents. Finally, Part III argues that an adequate remedy exists outside of rule 41(e), rendering immediate appellate review of rulings on 41(e) motions unnecessary.

Constitutional Law—Sixth Amendment—Significance Of Testimony Constitutes A Factor In Determining Right Of Confrontation, Brendan M. Donahue

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach Criminal Defendants - Do The Risks Outweigh The Benefits?, James W. Betro

Antioch Law Journal

The use of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant-witness is generally accepted in most American jurisdictions.'Such evidence is allowed in order to present the jury with the general character of a witness so that they may be better able to decide as to his or her tendency to lie on the witness stand.2 The rationale behind this rule is based on the theory that a witness who has been previously convicted of a crime may be less likely to tell the truth than someone who has never been convicted.3 Unfortunately, when a criminal defendant takes the …

Fifth Amendment Privilege For Producing Corporate Documents, Nancy J. King

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a person should be able to assert her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination when her act of producing corporate documents pursuant to a subpoena causes her to make testimonial admissions that are incriminating. Part I briefly examines the two approaches the Supreme Court has used to decide claims of self-incrimination for records production. First, it explains the Court's traditional entity doctrine which, by focusing on the nature of the documents and the capacity in which they are held, has prohibited records producers from invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the records produced are those …

An Analysis Of Public Attitudes Toward The Insanity Defense, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Results from a public opinion survey of knowledge, attitudes, and support for the insanity defense indicate that people dislike the insanity defense for both retributive and utilitarian reasons: they want insane law-breakers punished, and they believe that insanity defense procedures fail to protect the public. However, people vastly overestimate the use and success of the insanity plea. Several attitudinal and demographic variables that other researchers have found to be associated with people's support for the death penalty and perceptions of criminal sentencing are also related to support for the insanity defense. Implications for public policy are discussed.

The Right To Counsel During Custodial Interrogation: Equivocal References To An Attorney-Determining What Statements Or Conduct Should Constitute An Accused's Invocation Of The Right To Counsel, Matthew W.D. Bowman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all persons the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the fifth amendment to require a specified set of procedural safeguards that law enforcement officers must follow to protect adequately each individual's fifth amendment rights. The Miranda safeguards require that prior to an accused's custodial interrogation, government officials must inform the accused that he has the right to remain silent; that any of his statements maybe used against him in a subsequent criminal action; that he has the right to confer with counsel; …

Criminal Procedure—Charge Of Rape By Sexual Intercourse Sufficient To Convict Of Rape By Deviate Sexual Activity Under The Arkansas Rape Statute, Vickie A. Warner

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Criminal Procedure—Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of The Insane, Jonathan Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 3142(E) Of The 1984 Bail Reform Act: Rebuttable Presumption Or Mandatory Detention?, Evan Shapiro

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Selling The Idea To Tell The Truth: The Professional Interrogator And Modern Confessions Law, Joseph D. Grano

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (3d edition) by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley

Silencing Gideon's Trumpet: The Plight Of The Indigent Prisoner, Allison I. Connelly

Law Faculty Popular Media

In this newsletter article, Professor Connelly discusses the difficulties faced by indigent prisoners in gaining access to the justice system.

V. Criminal Law And Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Bad Faith-Harassment Exception To The Younger Doctrine: Exploring The Empty Universe, C. Keith Wingate

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Rummaging Through A Wilderness Of Verbiage" - The Charge Conference, Jury Argument And Instructions, The Hon. Thomas S. Watts

Campbell Law Review

Judges frequently assume that a lawyer who has engaged in the preparation of pleadings, the extensive discovery practice permitted by both civil and criminal statutes, and who has presented all of his or her evidence to a jury has also researched and understands the law applicable to the lawsuit. Lawyers frequently assume that a judge who has reviewed the court file and presided over the evidentiary portion of the trial also fully comprehends the law of the action. Unfortunately, neither assumption is completely correct, although both bar and trial bench correctly interpret and apply our complex and ever growing body …

Criminal Procedure - Defendant's Due Process Right To A Psychiatric Expert - Ake V. Oklahoma, William D. Auman

Campbell Law Review

This note analyzes the public policy implications of the Ake decision while considering the resulting impact on North Carolina. The note also evaluates the soundness of the decision with respect to the requirement of a preliminary showing. Finally, recommendations for implementing the Ake rule are discussed while examining whether "access to a competent psychiatrist" is in fact a standard of constitutional disadvantage for the indigent criminal defendant.

Jury Instructions: A Bibliography. Part Ii: Criminal Jury Instructions, Cheryl R. Nyberg, Jane Williams, Carol Boast

Librarians' Articles

Pattern jury instructions are used by trial judges to explain the law to jurors in language that they can understand and that provide consistency from one trial to another. This criminal jury instructions bibliography of 169 entries is a companion to a previous bibliography on civil jury instructions. An index to acronyms for both criminal and civil jury instructions is also included.

Criminal Procedure, Alan Raphael, Leslie Khoshaba

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Florida Reverses Its Per Se Reversal Rule On Improper Prosecutorial Comment On A Defendant's Right To Remain Silent, J. Allison Defoor Ii, Randolph Braccialarghe

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Attorney Loyalty And Client Perjury - A Postscript To Nix V. Whiteside, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

How much, if at all, can a criminal defense lawyer cooperate in his or her client's decision to commit perjury? Courts, commentators, and bar committees have grappled with this question for years without offering clear or consistent guidelines. Any principled response must take into account some very hard questions. Under what circumstances, for instance, does the lawyer ever really "know" that his client's proposed testimony is false? Is it sufficient if the lawyer simply disbelieves his client's story, or that of his client's witnesses? Does it make any difference if the attorney learns of a plan to perjure during the …

Attempting The Impossible: The Emerging Consensus, Ira Robbins

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Impossible attempts are situations in which an actor fails to consummate a substantive crime because he is mistaken about attendant circumstances. Professor Robbins divides mistakes regarding circumstances into three categories: mistakes of fact, mistakes of law, and mistakes of mixed fact and law. Courts and commentators disagree primarily over the identification and treatment of mixed fact law cases. Professor Robbins surveys each category of mistake. He then examines the objective, subjective, and hybrid approaches to dealing with the mixed fact/law category. The objective approach requires an objective manifestation of the actor's intent before conviction is allowed. The subjective approach permits …