Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (21)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (8)
- Cornell University Law School (2)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
-
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Southern Methodist University (1)
- UC Law SF (1)
- UIC School of Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- William & Mary Law School (1)
- Keyword
-
- Miranda v. Arizona (11)
- Dickerson v. United States (10)
- Capital punishment sentencing (7)
- Fifth Amendment (7)
- City of Boerne v. Flores (5)
-
- Custodial interrogation (5)
- Due Process Clause (5)
- Equal protection (5)
- Equal Protection Clause (4)
- United States Supreme Court (4)
- Confession (3)
- Congress (3)
- Fourteenth Amendment (3)
- Kamisar (Yale) (3)
- Mapp v. Ohio (3)
- Michigan v. Tucker (3)
- New York v. Quarles (3)
- Police interrogation (3)
- Self-Incrimination Clause (3)
- Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena (2)
- Bill of Rights (2)
- Brown v. Board of Education (2)
- Commerce Clause (2)
- Compulsion (2)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Diversity (2)
- Due process (2)
- Edwards v. Arizona (2)
- Employment Division v. Smith (2)
- Equality (2)
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (17)
- Capital Defense Journal (8)
- Articles (4)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (2)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
-
- American Indian Law Review (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (1)
- Popular Media (1)
- Publications (1)
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (1)
- UIC Law Review (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (1)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (1)
- Washington Law Review (1)
- West Virginia Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 47
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Political History Of The Establishment Clause, John C. Jeffries Jr., James E. Ryan
A Political History Of The Establishment Clause, John C. Jeffries Jr., James E. Ryan
Michigan Law Review
Now pending before the Supreme Court is the most important church-state issue of our time: whether publicly funded vouchers may be used at private, religious schools without violating the Establishment Clause. The last time the Court considered school aid, it overruled precedent and upheld a government program providing computers and other instructional materials to parochial schools. In a plurality opinion defending that result, Justice Thomas dismissed as irrelevant the fact that some aid recipients were "pervasively sectarian." That label, said Thomas, had a "shameful pedigree." He traced it to the Blaine Amendment, proposed in 1875, which would have altered the …
Constitutional And Family Law—Grandparent Visitation In The Face Of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Parental Or Grandparental Rights? Troxel V. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)., Oliver G. Hahn
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Origins And Constitutionality Of State Unit Voting In The Electoral College, Matthew J. Festa
The Origins And Constitutionality Of State Unit Voting In The Electoral College, Matthew J. Festa
Vanderbilt Law Review
On November 1, 2000, a Joint Resolution was introduced in Congress proposing a constitutional amendment to change the Article II system of electing the President and Vice President' by abolishing the Electoral College. Acknowledging the fact that "there have been more congressionally proposed constitutional amendments on this subject than any other," the sponsoring Senator noted that the issue "could become supremely important in a few days," because "we have the possibility that the winning candidate for President might not win the popular vote in our country.' One prominent legal scholar has described the mere possibility of such an event as …
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent leadership has invalidated numerous federal laws, arguably departing from settled precedent to do so. The Rehnquist Court has held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in five instances during the 2000-01 Term, on four occasions during the 1999-2000 Term and in a total of twenty-nine cases since the 1994-95 Term. Commentators typically explain these decisions in federalism terms, focusing on the Court's use of its power to protect the States from an overreaching Congress. That explanation is incomplete and, in important respects, unpersuasive. The Rehnquist Court has not been as solicitous of …
When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii
When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Bill of Rights. Imagine Chief Justice John Marshall sitting in the dim, narrow Supreme Court chambers, pondering the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr was charged with treason for planning to invade the Louisiana Territory and create a separate government there. To help prepare his defense, Burr wanted to see a letter written by General James Wilkinson to President Jefferson. In ruling on Burr's motion to compel disclosure, Marshall departed from the literal language of the Sixth Amendment - …
Schmitt V. Commonwealth 547 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 200[ 1])
Schmitt V. Commonwealth 547 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 200[ 1])
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
A Measure Of Freedom, James W. Nickel
Inconsistencies In Virginia Capital Jurisprudence, Sarah M. Braugh
Inconsistencies In Virginia Capital Jurisprudence, Sarah M. Braugh
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bums V. Commonwealth 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001)
Bums V. Commonwealth 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Lenz V. Commonwealth 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001) Remington V. Commonwealth 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001)
Lenz V. Commonwealth 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001) Remington V. Commonwealth 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Balancing States' Rights With Individual Rights: Tipping The Scales Against The Rights Of Non-Suspect Classes, Linda Carter Batiste
Balancing States' Rights With Individual Rights: Tipping The Scales Against The Rights Of Non-Suspect Classes, Linda Carter Batiste
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
Michigan Law Review
Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …
Integration Without Classification: Moving Toward Race-Neutrality In The Pursuit Of Public Elementary And Secondary School Diversity, Paul Diller
Michigan Law Review
Ever since the Supreme Court's invalidation of racially segregated public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, America has wrestled with the challenge of successfully dismantling educational apartheid. In recent years, the federal judiciary has largely retreated from enforcing desegregation in school districts that were once under court supervision for engaging in intentional racial discrimination, finding that the vestiges of past discrimination have been satisfactorily ameliorated. In some such unitary school districts, as well as in districts in which no intentional segregation was ever identified by the courts, boards of education, have voluntarily implemented student assignment plans designed to increase …
Hate And The Bar: Is The Hale Case Mccarthyism Redux Or A Victory For Racial Equality?, W. Bradley Wendel
Hate And The Bar: Is The Hale Case Mccarthyism Redux Or A Victory For Racial Equality?, W. Bradley Wendel
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The application of the constitutional free expression guarantee to the activities of the organized bar is one of the most important unexplored areas of legal ethics. In this essay I will consider in particular the question of whether an applicant may be denied admission to the bar for involvement with hateful or discriminatory activities. This question reveals the tension between the first amendment principle, established after the agonizing struggles of the McCarthy era, that no one may be denied membership in the bar because of his or her beliefs alone, and the plenary authority of bar associations to make predictive …
The 2000 Presidential Election: Archetype Or Exception?, Michael C. Dorf
The 2000 Presidential Election: Archetype Or Exception?, Michael C. Dorf
Michigan Law Review
The day after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, a colleague who specializes in tax law approached me with mock sympathy. "It must be very discouraging trying to teach constitutional law," he said, "when it's so obviously made up." This view of the Court's decision remains widely held, at least within the academy and among those who did not vote for President Bush. Unlike many of my fellow Democrats and academic colleagues, however, I see no reason to question the motives of the majority (or dissenting) Justices in Bush v. Gore. I certainly do not think that the …
Morgan Kousser's Noble Dream, Heather K. Gerken
Morgan Kousser's Noble Dream, Heather K. Gerken
Michigan Law Review
J. Morgan Kousser, professor of history and social science at the California Institute of Technology, is an unusual academic. He enjoys the respect of two quite different groups - historians and civil rights litigators. As a historian, Kousser has written a number of important works on the American South in the tradition of his mentor, C. Vann Woodward, including a foundational book on southern political history, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910. Many of his writings have become seminal texts among election law scholars. Kousser has also used his historical skills …
Make Way For The Aba: Smith V. Robbins Clears A Path For Anders Alternatives, James E. Duggan, Andrew W. Moeller
Make Way For The Aba: Smith V. Robbins Clears A Path For Anders Alternatives, James E. Duggan, Andrew W. Moeller
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Indigents appealing criminal convictions are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The American Bar Association suggests a standard for providing the required representation. This standard is known as the Idaho Rule.
No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments Against Private Prosecutors, Matthew S. Nichols
No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments Against Private Prosecutors, Matthew S. Nichols
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Establishing A Capital Defense Unit In Virginia: A Proposal To Increase The Quality Of Representation For Indigent Capital Defendants, Jeremy P. White
Establishing A Capital Defense Unit In Virginia: A Proposal To Increase The Quality Of Representation For Indigent Capital Defendants, Jeremy P. White
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
The Long And Winding Road: The Quest For Admission Of Prison, Life Evidence In Virginia Capital Sentencing Proceedings, Latanya R. White
The Long And Winding Road: The Quest For Admission Of Prison, Life Evidence In Virginia Capital Sentencing Proceedings, Latanya R. White
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Parole Eligibility In Goins V. Angelone, 226 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2000) And Bacon V. Lee, 225 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Michigan Law Review
The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Michigan Law Review
Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …