Law Commons^™

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

Maine Law Review

Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …

Book Review: James Duane, You Have The Right To Remain Innocent: What Police Officers Tell Their Children About The Fifth Amendment, Cecily J. Mullins

ConLawNOW

In this essay, the student author reviews the book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent by James Duane, which emphasizes the inherent risks of speaking to the police, regardless of whether or not you have something to hide.

Take The Fifth... Please!: The Original Insignificance Of The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Of Law Clause, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause adds nothing to the Constitution’s original meaning. Every principle for limiting federal executive, judicial, and even legislative powers that can plausibly be attributed to the idea of “due process of law” – from the principle of legality forbidding executive or judicial action in the absence of law to the requirement of notice before valid judicial judgments to a limitation on arbitrary governmental action that today goes under the heading of “substantive due process” – is already contained in the text and structure of the Constitution of 1788. The Fifth Amendment Due Process …

Holding Supporters Of Terrorism Accountable: The Exercise Of General Jurisdiction Over The Pa And Plo In A Post-Daimler Framework, Mark D. Christopher

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

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 Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …

Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …

What Is The Relevant Parcel? Clarifying The "Parcel As A Whole" Standard In Murr V. Wisconsin, Gavin S. Frisch

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Murr v. Wisconsin seeks to determine whether commonly-owned, adjacent parcels of land are considered as 1 or 2 parcels for purposes of analyzing a regulatory takings claim. Nearly 40 years ago, the Court in Penn Central rejected a property owner's takings claim which segmenting the entire parcel into discrete property rights because a compensatory taking must result from governmental action which interferes with the "parcel as a whole." In Murr, property owners argue that a local zoning ordinance effected a taking of one of their two adjoining parcels because the ordinance prohibited the owners from developing their lot. I …

The Law Court's Proper Application Of Miranda In State V. Bragg: A "Matter-Of-Fact Communication" To The Defendant Regarding Evidence Against Him Will Not Typically Constitute "Interrogation", Stephen B. Segal

Maine Law Review

In State v. Bragg, Tammy Bragg was convicted of a Class D crime for operating under the influence (OUI) at the completion of a jury trial, and was ordered to pay a fine of $800 and her license was suspended for ninety days. During her trial, Bragg submitted a motion to suppress statements she made in the police officer’s vehicle and the police station on the grounds that she was not read her Miranda warnings prior to making the statements. The Superior Court denied her motion, however, concluding that Miranda warnings were not necessary in the officer’s vehicle because her …

The Lost Due Process Doctrines, Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Catholic University Law Review

Due process jurisprudence has long been dominated by discussion of its procedural requirements and substantive limitations. Through the lens of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, however, the Supreme Court has also considered the geographic reach and substantive exercise of legal authority, the delegation of law making to private parties, the incorporation doctrine, and the issues of fundamental fairness. These doctrines have existed for some time, but the Supreme Court has never explained how they fit into its “procedural vs. substantive” dichotomy. This article examines these Lost Due Process Doctrines and poses the question of whether they should suffer the same …

State V. Lovejoy: Should Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Be Admissible During The State's Case-In-Chief As Substantive Evidence Of Guilt?, Mark A. Rucci

Maine Law Review

Article 1, section 6 of Maine Constitution reads in part that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property, or privileges . . . .” Further, the Law Court has held that “the State constitutional protection against self-incrimination is the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment." However, as with most provisions of the Constitution, the protection against self-incrimination is open to interpretation. While the Supreme Court has answered some questions surrounding the Fifth Amendment’s protections, it has left many decisions regarding its scope largely within the purview of the …

Violating Equal Protection: Lynch V. Morales-Santana And The Ina’S Sex Discriminatory Physical Presence Requirement, Courtney Magnus

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Lynch v. Morales-Santana, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Immigration and Nationality Act’s physical presence requirement scheme violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(c) (1952), an unwed U.S. citizen father wishing to convey citizenship at-birth to his child born abroad cannot do so unless he has been physically present in the United States for ten years prior to the child’s birth. In contrast, an unwed citizen mother only needs to be physically present for one continuous year. This commentary argues that because §§ 1401 and 1409 facially discriminate against unwed …

The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

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 …

Compulsion, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal