Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Universitas Indonesia (584)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (279)
- University of Michigan Law School (267)
- Seattle University School of Law (253)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (156)
-
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (133)
- UIC School of Law (85)
- BLR (67)
- University of Maine School of Law (57)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (56)
- Pepperdine University (49)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (47)
- William & Mary Law School (41)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (39)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (37)
- University of Colorado Law School (37)
- University of Richmond (33)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (31)
- University of Georgia School of Law (25)
- American University Washington College of Law (24)
- St. Mary's University (24)
- Georgia State University College of Law (23)
- Roger Williams University (23)
- Columbia Law School (22)
- Fordham Law School (22)
- University of Washington School of Law (22)
- Cornell University Law School (21)
- Georgetown University Law Center (21)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (21)
- Pace University (20)
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (215)
- Sixth Amendment (184)
- Fifth Amendment (156)
- Fourth Amendment (151)
- Criminal procedure (136)
-
- Constitution (131)
- Supreme Court (128)
- Due process (122)
- United States Supreme Court (116)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (109)
- New York (107)
- Evidence (104)
- Constitutional law (101)
- Criminal Procedure (100)
- Federal (100)
- Police (97)
- Right to counsel (93)
- Fourth amendment (86)
- Criminal law (78)
- Confrontation Clause (77)
- Criminal Law (77)
- Testimony (74)
- Privacy (73)
- Defendant (71)
- State (67)
- Miranda v. Arizona (62)
- Due Process (61)
- Search (61)
- Self-incrimination (60)
- Death penalty (59)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan (444)
- Touro Law Review (258)
- Seattle University Law Review (214)
- Michigan Law Review (154)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
-
- Articles (101)
- Faculty Scholarship (93)
- UIC Law Review (80)
- Cardozo Law Review (75)
- ExpressO (64)
- Maine Law Review (57)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (52)
- Pepperdine Law Review (48)
- Supreme Court Case Files (48)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (47)
- Publications (37)
- Faculty Articles (34)
- Buffalo Law Review (31)
- Scholarly Works (30)
- Faculty Publications (27)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (26)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (24)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (23)
- University of Richmond Law Review (22)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (21)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (20)
- West Virginia Law Review (20)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (19)
- Indonesia Law Review (19)
- Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice (19)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 2281 - 2310 of 3077
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
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 …
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 …
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …
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." …
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 …
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 …
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling
Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Commercial Activity Exception Under The Fsia, Personhood Under The Fifth Amendment And Jurisdiction Over Foreign States: A Partial Roadmap For The Supreme Court In The New Millennium, Stephen J. Leacock
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Reflections On When "We, The People" Kill, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 713 (2001), Michael P. Seng
Reflections On When "We, The People" Kill, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 713 (2001), Michael P. Seng
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Craft Of Due Process, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
The Craft Of Due Process, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Faculty Publications
Response to Professor Israel's presentation "On the Costs of Uniformity and the Prospects of Dualism in Constitutional Criminal Procedure."
Drug Tests, Arrests & Fetuses: A Comment On The U.S. Supreme Court's Narrow Opinion In Ferguson V. City Of Charleston, Brigitte M. Nahas
Drug Tests, Arrests & Fetuses: A Comment On The U.S. Supreme Court's Narrow Opinion In Ferguson V. City Of Charleston, Brigitte M. Nahas
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, where the Court ruled that a hospital's drug-testing policy for pregnant patients violated the Fourth Amendment. The analysis critiques the Court's narrow opinion for failing to provide clear guidance on future drug-testing policies, while emphasizing the unconstitutionality of using such policies primarily for law enforcement purposes. The author argues that the decision leaves unresolved questions about the balance between government interests and women's privacy and reproductive rights, particularly in the context of prenatal care and drug use.
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Alan Isaacman And The First Amendment: A Candid Interview With Larry Flynt's Attorney, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards
Alan Isaacman And The First Amendment: A Candid Interview With Larry Flynt's Attorney, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards
Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel
Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
When I was first introduced to the constitutional regulation of criminal procedure in the mid-1950s, a single issue dominated the field: To what extent did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose upon states the same constitutional restraints that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments imposed upon the federal government? While those Bill of Rights provisions, as even then construed, imposed a broad range of constitutional restraints upon the federal criminal justice system, the federal system was (and still is) minuscule as compared to the combined systems of the fifty states. With the Bill of Rights provisions …
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
Articles
Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.
Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller
Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5
Where Hannah Arendt Went Wrong, David Abraham
The Racial Origins Of Modern Criminal Procedure, Michael J. Klarman
The Racial Origins Of Modern Criminal Procedure, Michael J. Klarman
Michigan Law Review
The constitutional law of state criminal procedure was born between the First and Second World Wars. Prior to 1920, the Supreme Court had upset the results of the state criminal justice system in just a handful of cases, all involving race discrimination in jury selection. By 1940, however, the Court had interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to invalidate state criminal convictions in a wide variety of settings: mob-dominated trials, violation of the right to counsel, coerced confessions, financially-biased judges, and knowingly perjured testimony by prosecution witnesses. In addition, the Court had broadened its earlier decisions forbidding …
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Is Payne Defensible?: The Constitutionality Of Admitting Victim-Impact Evidence At Capital Sentencing Hearings, Joshua D. Greenberg
Is Payne Defensible?: The Constitutionality Of Admitting Victim-Impact Evidence At Capital Sentencing Hearings, Joshua D. Greenberg
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Harmonic Convergence? Constitutional Criminal Procedure In An International Context, Diane Marie Amann
Harmonic Convergence? Constitutional Criminal Procedure In An International Context, Diane Marie Amann
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law And Criminal Procedure—Media Ride-Alongs Into The Home: Can They Survive A Head-On Collision Between First And Fourth Amendment Rights? Wilson V. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999), Deleith Duke Gossett
Constitutional Law And Criminal Procedure—Media Ride-Alongs Into The Home: Can They Survive A Head-On Collision Between First And Fourth Amendment Rights? Wilson V. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999), Deleith Duke Gossett
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Carl Schmitt: The Defective Guidance For The Critique Of Political Liberalism, Emanuel Richter
Carl Schmitt: The Defective Guidance For The Critique Of Political Liberalism, Emanuel Richter
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Litigation In The United States And Mexico: A Comparative Overview, Robert M. Kossick, Jr.
Litigation In The United States And Mexico: A Comparative Overview, Robert M. Kossick, Jr.
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
No abstract provided.