Criminal Law Commons^™

The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Sounds Of Silence: Can Post-Miranda Silence Be Used To Rebut An Insanity Defense, Michael L. Perlin

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Passion: An Essay On Personality , Richard F. Devlin Frsc

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Passion is a cogently structured, compel Jingly argued and seductively enthralling masterpiece which, in years to come, will undoubtedly stand out as an inspirational source for many who seek social transformation. Unger's style, in this essay at least, is lucid and inviting. Substantively, Passion demonstrates not only the depth of his penetrating intellect but also his command of an array of' disciplines. Unger's polymathy is all the more impressive when we remember that ours is an era in which idiosyncratic specialization is the norm.

The Burger Court And Prosecutorial Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Professor Gershman critically examines a series of recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with prosecutorial misconduct. In each case, the Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction.

There are a broad range of issues involved; from suppression of evidence to trial misconduct. As a former prosecutor in New York City, the author is forced to conclude that, "Prosecutorial misconduct occurs because it works and because sanctions for misbehavior are virtually nonexistent."

Balancing Government Efficienty And The Protection Of Individual Liberties: An Analysis Of The Conflit Between Executive Branch "Housekeeping" Regulations And Criminal Defendants' Rights To A Constitutionally Fair Trial, James F. Ponsoldt

Scholarly Works

This Article addresses the issue of whether an accused person should be entitled to obtain and use at trial relevant government information or the testimony of government employees to prove his innocence, regardless of whether he has revealed in advance to his adversary his intended use of that information or the specific content of that testimony. Part I describes the federal "housekeeping" statute and the Justice Department's housekeeping regulations, which require that subpoenaed government employees not disclose evidence unless the person seeking that evidence has first summarized the requested evidence in advance, explained its intended use, and obtained permission from …

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Second Look At The North Carolina Fair Sentencing Act, Richard J. Anderson

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary

Seattle University Law Review

This article first demonstrates that courts historically did not trust penal interest statements in general, and that courts were extremely suspicious of any statements by a third party that implicated the defendant. Since Washington adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) verbatim, this article then analyzes the legislative history of the rule. The article concludes that the legislative history favored exclusion of inculpatory statements but that Congress failed to codify the exclusion because of unrelated problems. Finally, the article discusses the confrontation clause problems that arise when inculpatory statements are allowed into evidence. This article argues that the Parris holding should …

New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Self-Incrimination In Great Britain, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Winfield V. Commonwealth: The Application Of The Virginia Rape Shield Statute, Philip L. Hatchett

University of Richmond Law Review

In Winfield v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the state's recently enacted rape shield statute could not restrict or infringe upon the defendant's sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to confront his accusers. In overruling the trial judge, the court stated that section 18.2-67.7 of the Code of Virginia actually expanded the admissibility of evidence related to specific prior sexual conduct of the prosecutrix. By this ruling, Virginia has joined a minority of jurisdictions which have refused to recognize the special dilemma of the prosecutrix in a rape trial and to grant additional protections under her …

United States V. Leon, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Evidence In Capital Cases, John Kaplan

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confessions, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

The entry for 'Confessions' in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 1983

The Hearsay Exception For Public Records In Federal Criminal Trials, Vincent C. Alexander

Faculty Publications

The hearsay exception for "public records" was recognized at common law and has been further developed in most jurisdictions by statute. The reliability of public records is said to derive from the presumption of regularity and accuracy that attends the recording of events by public officials. As with the hearsay exception for recordsmade in the regular course of a private business, the reliability of many public records is enhanced by the routine and repetitive circumstancesunder which such records are made. An additional justificationfor the admission of public records is public convenience: If government employees are continually required to testify in …

When Blood Is Their Argument: Probabilities In Criminal Cases, Genetic Markers, And, Once Again, Bayes' Theorem, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

Revolutionary advances in blood typing soon will cause a dramatic increase in the presentation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Courts have admitted statistics into criminal trials before, and the proper use of this type of evidence has been debated previously. Until now, however, such mathematical evidence has been rare. Recently, however, a number of courts have admitted probability evidence derived from new and complex blood tests. Such evidence may soon be as commonplace as fingerprint testimony. The courts that have admitted this evidence, however, have done so without learning from past discussions about the proper role of statistical evidence. …

The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy

University of Richmond Law Review

The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.

Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. These claims have focused on the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Defendants have contended that the introduction of testimony from a grand jury proceeding which cannot be subjected to cross-examination fatally compromises the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lower courts are split over admitting grand jury testimony in these circumstances, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. As a result, …

The Expert As Educator: A Proposed Approach To The Use Of Battered Woman Syndrome Expert Testimony, Meredith B. Cross

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development proposes that courts should permit the use of battered woman syndrome expert testimony, but restrict its use to informing juries of the peculiar mental and emotional state of battered women. This role of the expert as educator would serve to dispel a jury's misconceptions about battered women and, at the same time, draw the focus of the testimony away from the implication which troubled the Buhrle court--that the battered woman syndrome represents a new defense to murder.The Advisory Committee explains in a note that rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence suggests the use of expert …

The Acquisition Of Evidence For Criminal Prosecution: Some Constitutional Premises And Practices In Transition, H. Richard Uviller

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article isolates only two of the many aspects of the Court's labors affecting the acquisition of evidence for criminal prosecution. The first concerns the allocation of primacy among the values that the exclusionary response to the illegal acquisition of evidence serves: a theoretical choice that may carry some notable practical consequences. The second requires are examination of the role of the trial court in supervising the preaccusatory search for evidence in a way that suggests the possible obsolescence of the Supreme Court's ruling credo in the Stewart era.

Estelle V. Smith: The Constitutional Contours Of The Forensic Evaluation, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Estelle v. Smith,' the United States Supreme Court recognized for the first time that an evaluation of a criminal defendant by a mental health professional may implicate both the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The issues raised in Estelle are significant not only for the legal profession but also for those in the mental health professions who perform "clinical" evaluations for the criminal courts. Estelle involved the case of Ernest Smith, who was sentenced to death by a Texas jury in 1974. Prior to trial, the judge ordered a psychiatrist, Dr. Grigson, …

How We Got The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule And Why We Need It, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Why the continuing storm of controversy over the exclusionary rule? Why the deep and widespread hostility to it? I think a recent law office search case, because it arose in a setting so unlike the typical search and seizure case, furnishes a clue. In O'Connor v. Johnson, St. Paul police obtained a warrant to search an attorney's office for business records of a client suspected of making false written statements in applying for a liquor license. The attorney happened to be present when the police arrived. Holding on to his work product file, which contained some of the records sought, …

Burden Of Proof With Respect To The Defense Of Withdrawal From Conspiracy: United States V. Read, Alan S. Fox

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Immunity And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: A Study In Isomorphism, Peter Lushing

Articles

This Article accepts and will develop the Court's isomorphic theory of immunity and privilege, and will show why Portash is nonetheless correct in result. A case for a broadened view of the privilege, partially because of the availability of testimonial immunity, will be made. Apftlbaum will be shown to be incorrect in result. This Article will also analyze the problem of immunized testimony and perjury by inconsistent statement, a problem faced once by the Court but left unresolved. Finally, this Article will discuss the constitutional requirements of an immunity statute, and consider an immunity case presently pending before the Supreme …

Parent-Child Incest: Proof At Trial Without Testimony In Court By The Victim, Dustin P. Ordway

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the incest victim should not testify personally at trial. Rather, the child's testimony should be replaced with tape-recorded pretrial examinations of the victim by an expert, supplemented by the in-court testimony of the examining expert. Part I discusses how the present system of requiring in-court testimony by the victim harms the child, fails to correct the incest problem, and produces unreliable evidence. Part II outlines and discusses the merits of the proposed reform. Part ill examines the proposed reform in light of the defendant's constitutional rights to due process and to confront witnesses against him. The …

Criminal Procedure—Scope Of The Exclusionary Rule—Inevitable Discovery Exception Adopted, Melanie J. Strigel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Access To Evidence: The Case For The Defense Use Of Immunity For Essential Witnesses, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Faces Without Features: The Surface Validity Of Criminal Inferences, Peter Lushing

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in County Court v. Allen, arguing that the Court's approach to evaluating instructed inferences in criminal cases undermines the integrity of the fact-finding process. The central concern is that the Court's methodology, which assesses inferences as applied rather than on their face, fails to address the potential irrationality of such inferences and the pressure they may exert on jurors to convict without thorough consideration of the evidence. The article advocates for a more rigorous standard to ensure the rationality and constitutionality of instructed inferences in criminal trials.

The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On The Issue Of Eyewitness Identification In Criminal Trials, 2 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 59 (1981), Edward B. Arnolds, William K. Carroll, Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …