Law Commons^™

More Than Just A Factfinder: The Right To Unanimous Jury Sentencing In Capital Cases, Richa Bijlani

Michigan Law Review

For some defendants, sentencing may be even more harrowing than a determination of guilt or innocence. Those facing capital punishment have the most to lose at the sentencing phase. The Supreme Court is not ignorant to this reality, finding in Ring v. Arizona that “the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished” if it had no application to death penalty proceedings. Yet under its permissive jurisprudence, the Court has suggested that the Sixth Amendment is satisfied in the death penalty context even if its protections vanish postconviction. This Note argues instead that the Sixth Amendment—specifically the jury right—should protect defendants more …

Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose

Michigan Law Review

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial at both the state and federal levels. Attempts to increase funding for indigent defense by bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims have been thwarted by high procedural and substantive hurdles, and consequently these attempts have failed to bring significant change. This Note argues that, because ineffective assistance of counsel litigation is most likely a dead end for system-wide reform, indigent defenders should challenge the constitutionality of underfunding based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial. Existing speedy trial jurisprudence suggests that the overworking and furloughing of …

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein

Michigan Law Review

A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held …

Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas In State And Federal Courts: Individual Rights Versus Tribal Self-Governance, Christiana M. Martenson

Michigan Law Review

Indian tribes in the United States are separate sovereigns with inherent self-governing authority. As a result, the Bill of Rights does not directly bind the tribes, and criminal defendants in tribal courts do not enjoy the protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In United States v. Ant, a defendant - without the legal assistance that a state or federal court would have provided - pled guilty to criminal charges in tribal court. Subsequently, the defendant faced federal charges arising out of the same events that led to the tribal prosecution. The Ninth Circuit in Ant barred the federal …

Don't Answer The Door: Montejo V. Louisiana Relaxes Police Restrictions For Questioning Non-Custodial Defendants, Emily Bretz

Michigan Law Review

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Montejo v. Louisiana that a defendant may validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation, even if police initiate interrogation after the defendant's invocation of the right at the first formal proceeding. This Note asserts that Montejo significantly altered the Sixth Amendment protections available to represented defendants. By increasing defendants' exposure to law enforcement, the decision allows police to try to elicit incriminating statements and waivers of the right to counsel after the defendant has expressed a desire for counsel. In order to protect the defendant's constitutional guarantee of a …

American Indians, Crime, And The Law, Kevin K. Washburn

Michigan Law Review

This Article evaluates the federal Indian country criminal justice regime, not against norms of Indian law and policy, but against those of criminal law and policy. Specifically, this Article evaluates the federal constitutional norms that lie at the heart of American criminal justice and that are designed to ensure the legitimacy of federal criminal trials. Toward that end, Part I presents a critical description of key facets of the federal Indian country criminal justice system. Part II begins the critical evaluation by evaluating a key institutional player in the federal system, the federal prosecutor. It highlights the handicaps faced by …

Expanding Forfeiture Without Sacrificing Confrontation After Crawford, Joshua Deahl

Michigan Law Review

The central holding of Crawford v. Washington is fairly straightforward: The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford, however, has an often overlooked caveat. In renouncing numerous exceptions to the confrontation right, the Court rejected only those that purport to test the reliability of testimonial statements. It left equitable exceptions undisturbed. As the Court pointed out, "[T]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds." The parameters of the rule of forfeiture are a matter of some dispute. …

Some Effects Of Identity-Based Social Movements On Constitutional Law In The Twentieth Century, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Michigan Law Review

What motivated big changes in constitutional law doctrine during the twentieth century? Rarely did important constitutional doctrine or theory change because of formal amendments to the document's text, and rarer still because scholars or judges "discovered" new information about the Constitution's original meaning. Precedent and common law reasoning were the mechanisms by which changes occurred rather than their driving force. My thesis is that most twentieth century changes in the constitutional protection of individual rights were driven by or in response to the great identity-based social movements ("IBSMs") of the twentieth century. Race, sex, and sexual orientation were markers of …

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 …

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …

Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker

Michigan Law Review

For the purposes of my argument, I adapt Professor Meir Dan-Cohen's distinction (which he in turn borrowed from Jeremy Bentham) between "conduct" rules and "decision" rules. Bentham and Dan-Cohen make this distinction in the context of substantive criminal law; for their purposes, "conduct" rules are addressed to the general public in order to guide its behavior (for example, "Let no person steal") and "decision" rules are addressed to public officials in order to guide their decisionmaking about the consequences of violating conduct rules (for example, "Let the judge cause whoever is convicted of stealing to be hanged"). But as any …

The Breath Of The Unfee'd Lawyer: Statutory Fee Limitations And Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel In Capital Litigation, Albert L. Vreeland Ii

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that fee limitations deprive indigent defendants of their right to effective assistance of counsel. Part I of this Note reviews state court decisions that address Sixth Amendment challenges to fee limitations, yet fail to address the broader concerns about the appointed counsel system. Part II considers the inherent disincentives and burdens fee limitations impose on attorneys and suggests that the limits threaten the indigent accused's right to effective assistance of counsel. A comparison of the fee limitations and the time required to prepare and try a capital case reveals the gross inadequacy of statutory fee provisions. In …

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 …

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 …

Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View, Paula E. Hill, Samuel M. Hill

Michigan Law Review

Increases in the number of reported incidents of child abuse and sexual molestation have resulted in more and younger children becoming courtroom participants. Some courts refuse to consider the special needs of the child in this adversarial environment. Relying on questionable precedent, these courts hold that the defendant's right to directly confront the child, as well as strict compliance with evidentiary rules, overrides that child's interest in freedom from embarrassment or psychological trauma. This Note focuses on pressures felt by the testifying child and the ways in which these pressures affect her testimony; it then proposes using videotaped testimony as …

Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick

Michigan Law Review

As presently construed, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. The states and the federal government may punish the commission of certain crimes with death, so long as the extreme penalty is not imposed on a mandatory basis and so long as the procedures used in imposing a death sentence meet constitutional scrutiny.

A demonstration that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenge in the manner described in a single case probably would be insufficient to support a constitutional challenge in the federal courts and in the vast majority of state courts. In these courts a prosecutor's use of the …

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note reformulates the doctrine of prosecutorial vindictiveness in light of the distinction drawn in Goodwin between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions. Part I recounts the development of the vindictiveness concept, and argues that in extending the doctrine beyond the factual settings which moved the Supreme Court to fashion its original prophylactic rule, the circuit courts have seriously eroded an essential due process safeguard. Part II critically examines the distinction between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions relied upon in Goodwin. Developing the logical corollary of the Goodwin holding, this Part argues that just as the pretrial situation does not …

Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Morrissey, the Court set the level of due process needed in parole revocations. Specifically, it held that the parolee facing •revocation has a right (a) to receive written notice of the claimed parole violations; (b) to hear the evidence against him; (c) to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation); (e) to have a neutral and detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) to be given …

Compulsory Process Ii, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the …

Constitutional Restraints On The Exclusion Of Evidence In The Defendant's Favor: The Implications Of Davis V. Alaska, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note, first, examines the Davis methodology for determining whether a foreclosed line of cross-examination warrants protection by the confrontation clause, and suggests a test employable by reviewing courts for making that determination. Then, the Note sketches the contours of the clash, prefigured by Davis, between the right of confrontation and the limitations on cross-examination that result from both the assertion of testimonial privileges and trial court relevance rulings.

A Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under Article 15 Of The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) enables a commanding officer to sentence a service member who has committed a minor infraction to thirty days of correctional custody. The article 15 proceeding offers few procedural safeguards; among the protections lacking is the right to counsel. This Note will consider whether the failure of the military to provide counsel at an article 15 proceeding is consistent with the sixth amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Note first will discuss …

Kirby, Biggers, And Ash: Do Any Constitutional Safeguards Remain Against The Danger Of Convicting The Innocent?, Joseph D. Grano

Michigan Law Review

Even recognizing the danger of misidentification, procedural safeguards, especially constitutional ones, are not readily apparent. Some judges, such as Justice Stewart, find less need for counsel at photographic displays than at lineups; others find an equivalent or even greater need for counsel. Some judges, in approving on-the-scene identifications without counsel, find a guarantee of accuracy in the short interval between the crime and the identification; other judges decry such procedures and find them inherently suggestive. The problem stems directly from the lack of scientific knowledge and inquiry. Therefore, in analyzing the recent identification cases, this Article will draw upon experimental …

Juvenile Courts--Juveniles In Delinquency Proceedings Are Not Constitutionally Entitled To The Right Of Trial By Jury--Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

At a hearing in the juvenile court of Philadelphia in October 1968, Joseph McKeiver was declared a "delinquent child" and placed on probation by a juvenile court judge who determined that McKeiver had violated a Pennsylvania law. The juvenile court petition charged McKeiver, then sixteen years old, with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods as the result of an incident in which McKeiver and twenty or thirty other youths took twenty-five cents from three teenagers. Despite the fact that the evidence against McKeiver consisted primarily of the weak and inconsistent testimony of two of the victims, the juvenile court judge, …

Criminal Law-Confessions-Admission Of Illegally Obtained Confession In State Criminal Prosecution Is Harmless Error Not Requiring Reversal Of Conviction--People V. Jacobson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant voluntarily admitted that he had murdered his daughter to a social worker, two ambulance attendants, and three police officers sent to investigate the incident. He continued to declare his guilt to these officers after his arrest, on the way to the police station, and at the police station where he was interrogated without the benefit of counsel although he had not waived his right to counsel. All of the confessions-approximately ten-were admitted in evidence at the defendant's trial over his objection that the two confessions obtained during the interrogation should have been excluded since he had been denied his …

Constitutional Right To Jury Trial In Criminal Contempt Cases?-United States V. Barnett, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Federal courts historically have had the power to try criminal contempt cases without a jury. There is a virtually uninterrupted 150-year line of cases which holds that contempt is not a "Crime" or "criminal prosecution" within the meaning of article III and the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Superficially, the decision in United States v. Barnett is in accord with these precedents. However, in an important "dictum," footnote number 12, the majority cautioned that "punishment by summary trial without a jury would be constitutionally limited to that penalty provided for petty offenses." Although the Court itself styles this comment a …

Kamisar, Inbau & Arnold: Criminal Justice In Our Time, Theodore Souris

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Criminal Justice in Our Time by Yale Kamisar, Fred E. Inbau, and Thurman Arnold

The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb

Michigan Law Review

Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …

Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Jencks Act like the rule it purportedly reaffirmed, was designed to insure "justice." Although the stated purpose of the act was to preserve the rights of any defendant under due process of law, the question remains unresolved whether, in articulating the rule in terms of "justice," the Court in Jencks v. United States incorporated it into the requirements of due process. To be sure, the underlying intent of both the Court and Congress is unclear, but of far more concern than the intent is whether the Jencks Act, in fact, violates the constitutional mandates of the Fifth and Sixth …