Law Commons^™

Lilly V. Virginia: Silencing The "Firmly Rooted" Hearsay Exception With Regard To An Accomplice's Testimony And Its Rejuvenation Of The Confrontation Clause, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the impact on the confrontation clause of introducing an accomplice's custodial statements which inculpate a defendant. Part II delves into the background of this issue by examining the confrontation clause's origin, the significance of hearsay with respect to the confrontation clause, and important cases in this area. Part III provides a statement of the facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lilly. Finally, Part IV analyzes the Lilly decision and its rejuvenation of the confrontation clause.

Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Nunez, Yale Pollack

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifth Amendment Protection For Public Employees: Garrity And Limited Constitutional Protections From Use Of Employer Coerced Statements In Internal Investigations And Practical Considerations, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department - In Re Heckl, Michael Prisco

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. White, Rosalinde Casalini

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, And Coercion, Through A Perspective Of Jewish Law And Legal Theory, Samuel J. Levine

Samuel J. Levine

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department: People V. Gibson, Kashima A. Loney

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow Kleinhaus

Suzanne Darrow Kleinhaus

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, And Coercion, Through A Perspective Of Jewish Law And Legal Theory, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

It is no exaggeration to say that Yale Kamisar was present at the creation of Miranda v. Arizona. To be sure, the seeds of Miranda had been sown in earlier cases, particularly Escobedo v. Illinois, but Escobedo was a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case. Professor Kamisar first saw the potential for extending the theory of Escob edo to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Escob edo theorized that a healthy criminal justice system requires that the accused know their rights and are encouraged to exercise them. The Escobedo Court read history to teach that no system …

The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Baltimore City Department Of Social Services V. Bouknight: The Required Records Doctrine - Logic And Beyond, H. Bruce Dorsey

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prospective Determinations Of Derived Use In Civil Proceedings: Upsetting The Immunity Balance, Hilary Anne Zealand

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Confrontation Clause, The Right Against Self-Incrimination And The Supreme Court: A Critique And Some Modest Proposals, David E. Seidelson

Duquesne Law Review

The impact of Supreme Court decisions on fifth and sixth amendment rights of the accused criminal is the subject of Professor Seidelson's most recent quest into the field of constitutional law. Using the Court's most recent decision on the sixth amendment confrontation clause as a vehicle, he examines the development of the clause over the past two decades and concludes that the Court's decisions have rendered the clause virtually coextensive with the hearsay rule. In a second part of the article Professor Seidelson discusses the effect of the Court's refusal to include physical evidence within the scope of the fifth …

Manes V. Meyers, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law - Prosecutor Calling A Witness To The Stand For The Purpose Of Exacting A Claim Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Is Not Prejudicial Error (Namet V. United States, United States Supreme Court 1963), G. Dennis Adams

San Diego Law Review

Namet and Mr. and Mrs. Kahn were charged with violation of a federal wagering tax law. Prior to the trial the Kahns pleaded guilty. Namet persisted in his innocence and was brought to trial. The prosecutor called Mrs. Kahn as a witness. She refused to testify, asserting her privilege against self-incrimination. The court ruled that since she had pleaded guilty she must answer questions concerning her own gambling activities, but as to third persons her privilege still existed. After this ruling the prosecutor made no attempt to connect Mrs. Kahn with Namet. Later the prosecutor called Mr. Kahn. After a …

Acquisition Of Evidence By Search And Seizure, Mary Louise Ramsey

Michigan Law Review

What protection do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments afford against acquisition of evidence by search and seizure, actual or constructive? Does an individual have a constitutional privilege against the disclosure of records he is required by law to keep? May police officers search premises on which an arrest is made and seize contraband which they find there? A series of cases recently decided by a closely divided Supreme Court has enveloped this field in the same deep fog of uncertainty which now hangs over so many other areas of constitutional law. The unstable quality of these precedents is attested by …

Self Incrimination And The Waiver Thereof, Theodore Sherbow

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence - Admissibility Of Defendants Refusal To Submit To A Blood Test For Intoxication, David Davidoff

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. This appeal was based on the contention that the testimony by a deputy sheriff of defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test to determine whether or not he was intoxicated violated his privilege against self-incrimination and was inadmissible. Held, the evidence was properly admitted. State v. Benson, (Iowa, 1941) 300 N. W. 275.

Criminal Law And Procedure - Evidence - Admissibility Of Lie Detector Tests In Evidence, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

After all the evidence had been produced for the jury's consideration in a murder trial, defendant's counsel moved to reopen the case and be permitted to take defendant to a laboratory to be examined under a pathometer, or lie detector. Held, that as the court could not take judicial notice that the instrument was or was not effective for determining the truth, because the record gave no indication of general scientific recognition, the motion was denied. People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204, 18 N. E. (2d) 31, affg. (King Co. Ct. 1938) 4 N. Y. S. (2d) …

Criminal Law And Procedure - Constitutionality Of A Comment Upon Defendant's Failure To Testify, D. M. Swope

Michigan Law Review

For several years there has been agitation in legal and legislative circles to permit comment in a criminal action upon the failure of the defendant to testify. Both the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute have passed resolutions favoring such legislation. The chief objection to the proposal has been its alleged unconstitutionality. The purpose of this comment is to attempt to rebut such a contention and to show that the advocated change is both constitutional and eminently desirable.

The Right To Comment On The Failure Of The Defendant To Testify, Andrew A. Bruce

Michigan Law Review

In 1931 the American Law Institute adopted a resolution to the effect that "The judge, the prosecuting attorney and counsel for the defense may comment upon the fact that the defendant did not testify."

In the same year the American Bar Association resolved: "That by law it should be permitted to the prosecution to comment to the jury on the fact that a defendant did not take the stand as a witness; and to the jury to draw the reasonable inferences."

Comment Upon Failure Of Accused To Testify, Robert P. Reeder

Michigan Law Review

Last year the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association adopted resolutions declaring that when the defendant in a criminal trial does not testify the prosecution should be permitted to comment upon that fact. They urged the overthrow of a rule of law which have prevailed in the federal courts ever since accused persons were first permitted to give testimony, over fifty years ago, and which has governed the courts of forty-two out of the forty-eight states. The discussions which preceded the adoption of the resolutions have been published. In them the advocates of the change do not show …