Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Confessions, Convictions And Controversy: An Examination Of False Confessions Leading To Wrongful Convictions In The United States Throughout History, Kirandeep Kaur
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
Michigan Law Review
Confession law is in a state of collapse. Fifty years ago, three different doctrines imposed constitutional limits on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: Miranda doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, Massiah doctrine under the Sixth Amendment, and voluntariness doctrine under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted Miranda and Massiah, effectively leaving suspects with only voluntariness doctrine to protect them during police interrogations. The voluntariness test is a notoriously vague case-by-case standard. In this Article, I argue that if voluntariness is going to be the framework for …
The Role Of The Parent/Guardian In Juvenile Custodial Interrogations: Friend Or Foe?, Hillary B. Farber
The Role Of The Parent/Guardian In Juvenile Custodial Interrogations: Friend Or Foe?, Hillary B. Farber
Faculty Publications
Part II briefly sets out the historical context of juvenile delinquency proceedings before and after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case In re Gault. Part III discusses the two current approaches to assessing the validity of a juvenile's waiver. Part IV examines three inadequacies with the parent/guardian advisor: (1) the standardless approach with which courts assess their appropriateness; (2) the inadequacy with which adults understand Miranda; and (3) the conflicts of interest that arise in this context. Part V analogizes to the abortion and paternity contexts to support the argument that lawyers should act as primary advisors to …
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Over the years, Miranda v. Arizona1 has been criticized both for going too far2 and for not going far enough.3 Nevertheless, on the basis of talks with many criminal procedure professors in the sixteen months between the time a panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld a statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501) purporting to "overrule" Miranda and a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court overturned that ruling in the case of Dickerson v. United States,4 I am convinced that most criminal procedure professors wanted the Supreme Court to do what it did-"reaffirm" Miranda. This is not surprising. As Professor Grano once …
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
The exclusionary rule is being flayed with increasing vigor by a number of unrelated sources and with a variety of arguments. Some critics find it unworkable and resort to empirically based arguments. Others see it as the product of a belated and unwarranted judicial interpretation. Still others, uncertain whether the rule works, are confident that in some fashion law enforcement's hands are tied. Professor Yale Kamisar, long a defender of the exclusionary rule, reviews the current attacks on the rule and offers a vigorous rebuttal. He finds it difficult to accept that there is a line for acceptable police conduct …
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
More than 50 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided the Weeks case, barring the use in federal prosecutions of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Silverthorne case, invoking what has come to be known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The justices who decided those cases would, I think, be quite surprised to learn that some day the value of the exclusionary rule would be measured by-and the very life of the rule might depend on-an empirical evaluation of its efficacy in deterring police misconduct. These justices were engaged in a less …
Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel
Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
My first task is to explain to some degree the nature of the problem embodied in our title. This book has been designated as "Escobedo-The Second Round." What we will be discussing is a series of cases, decided in June, 1966, the most noteworthy of which is Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)]. In these cases, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a new set of standards governing the introduction in evidence of statements obtained from the defendant through police interrogation. Actually, to a degree these standards were not entirely new. They had been suggested, at least in part, …
Has The Court Left The Attorney General Behind? The Bazelon-Katzenbach Letters On Poverty, Equality, And The Administration Of Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Distribution of the first preliminary draft of the proposed American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure last June touched off a brisk exchange of letters between Chief Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who maintained that the proposed code left a good deal to be desired, and Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, who, although he did not explicitly treat any provision of the preliminary draft, sharply challenged the conception of equality underlying Bazelon's criticism of it. By now, both the code, and the Bazelon-Katzenbach correspondence which it evoked, are …
Right To Counsel In Criminal Cases, Edward T. Haggins
Right To Counsel In Criminal Cases, Edward T. Haggins
Cleveland State Law Review
"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law... He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step of the proceedings against him." These words, written in 1932 by Mr. Justice Sutherland for the majority in the famous case of Powell v. Alabama underline the fundamental right of a defendant in American criminal proceeding to have the assistance of counsel.
Evidence-Invalidity Under Due Process Clause Of Convictions Based On Confessions Obtained By Duress
Evidence-Invalidity Under Due Process Clause Of Convictions Based On Confessions Obtained By Duress
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.