Law Commons^™

The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under The Massiah Line Of Cases, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The sixth amendment guarantees to the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In Massiah v. United States, the Supreme Court held this right was violated when there was used against the defendant at trial evidence of incriminating statements deliberately elicited from him by an informant after he had been indicted and in the absence of counsel. In effect, this decision and others that 'followed have created a new constitutional right not to be questioned about pending charges prior to trial except in the presence of an attorney.

One consequence …

"Lights, Camera, Action": Videotaping And Closed-Circuit Television Procedures Coyly Confront The Sixth Amendment, Stephanie A. Holmes

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

Confusing The Fifth Amendment With The Sixth: Lower Court Misapplication Of The Innis Definition Of Interrogation, Jonathan L. Marks

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines how these courts have applied or misapplied Innis, and concludes that, while many of these decisions are consistent with Miranda and Innis, too many others are not. In order to evaluate these cases, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and significance of Innis. Part I thus considers Innis and its background. Part II then examines lower court decisions applying the Innis test, dividing these decisions into six groups based on the most common factual scenarios. Because the cases deal with factually specific police practices, this method constitutes the most useful way to …

Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who comply with the elements of the government contractor defense are immune from products liability suits stemming from design defects. Lower courts consider the government contractor defense to be a combination of two separate defenses. The first is the well-settled contract specification defense which eliminates liability for contractors who properly follow client supplied specifications. The second defense is the doctrine of shared sovereign immunity shielding the contractor from liability based on public policy concerns.

In Boyle, the Court held defective design of military equipment will not …