Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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 …

Florida V. Riley, 109 S. Ct. 693 (1989), John R. Dixon

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Procedure/Constitutional Law - WARRANTLESS AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND THE OPEN VIEW DOCTRINE

Arizona V. Roberson: The Supreme Court Expands Suspects' Rights In The Custodial Interrogation Setting, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 685 (1989), Thomas N. Radek

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diminishing Expectations Of Privacy In The Rehnquist Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 825 (1989), Laurence A. Benner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: It's Time The Court Shed Some Light On The Use Of Ultraviolet Lamps, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 877 (1989), M. Jeffrey Tucker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy And Government Appeals Of Acquittals, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As part of a continuing series of papers on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investigation and adjudication, the Office of Legal Policy has carried out a review of the law governing double jeopardy prohibitions on federal government appeals of criminal acquittals. These prohibitions undermine the search for truth in criminal adjudication by allowing some wrongly acquitted, culpable individuals to go unpunished. The results of our review are set out in this Report.

Police Trespass And The Fourth Amendment: A Wall In Need Of Mending, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 795 (1989), Clifford S. Fishman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sandra Day O’Connor, Abortion, And Compromise For The Court, Susan M. Halatyn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Washington's Comparative Proportionality Review: Toward Effective Appellate Review Of Death Penalty Cases Under The Washington State Constitution, W. Ward Morrison Jr.

Washington Law Review

In conducting mandatory comparative proportionality review of all cases in which the death penalty is imposed, the Washington Supreme Court compares the defendant's case with similar cases to ensure that the penalty is being applied consistently. In theory, the review promotes rational and non-arbitrary capital sentencing. In practice, the review has not been effectively applied. Continued use of ineffective appellate review for death sentences violates the Washington Constitution. This Comment explores the various problems associated with the review process, and proposes possible solutions.

Duckworth V. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Yale Kamisar, the country's foremost scholar of Miranda and police interrogation, presents an analysis and critique of the Supreme Court's latest interpretation of Miranda. In Duckworth, a 5-4 Court upheld the "if and when" language systematically used by the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." The real issue was whether the police effectively conveyed the substance of a vital part of Miranda: the right to have a lawyer appointed prior to any questioning. Professor Kamisar …

The Child Porn Myth, Lawrence A. Stanley

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Commentary, The Selling Of Jury Deliberations, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Fifth Amendment: If An Aid To The Guilty Defendant, An Impediment To The Innocent One, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The fifth amendment's privilege not to answer, critics carp, insulates the guilty defendant from revealing his complicity. While this is true, ironically it also can shackle the innocent defendant from attempting to prove that another person committed the crime. If that other person asserts the fifth amendment in response to questions designed to substitute him for the defendant, the innocent defendant can neither surmount that person's assertion nor benefit therefrom.

Consider this set of facts. A murder is committed. Defendant, charged with the crime, has evidence that Witness killed the victim. The prosecution believes only one person committed the crime. …

Law And Consciousness, Charles A. Reich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Prosecutor As "Minister Of Justice", Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Times have changed. Today, prosecutors are on top of the world. Their powers are enormous, and constantly reinforced by sympathetic legislatures and courts. The "awful instruments of the criminal law," as Justice Frankfurter described the system,1 are today supplemented with broad new crimes, easier proof requirements, heavier sentencing laws, and an extremely cooperative judiciary, from district and state judges, to the highest Court in the land.

Habeas Corpus Committee - Correspondence, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Habeas Corpus Committee

No abstract provided.

Broken Promises And Involuntary Confessions: May A State Introduce Incriminating Statements Made By A Defendant As A Result Of Promises In A Plea Bargain Agreement If The Defendant Breaches That Agreement?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

There is a substantial constitutional question concerning whether admissions made pursuant to a plea bargain that the defendant has breached are admissible under the fifth amendment's privilege against compelled self-incrimination or the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Courts have reached conflicting results in regard to whether such statements are voluntary.lo This Article argues that it is difficult to resolve whether such admissions are voluntary because courts have not provided a clear definition as to under what circumstances a confession is voluntary in accordance with the dictates of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

Redefining A Culpable Mental State For Non-Triggermen Facing The Death Penalty, James J. Holman

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Hicks: Probable Cause Requirement Under The Plain View Doctrine, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1988), Robert J. Kuker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Attorney Fee Forfeiture Under Rico And Cce, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 155 (1988), John R. Russell

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rock V. Arkansas: Hypnosis And The Prejudice Rule - Your Memories May Not Be Your Own, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 409 (1988), Gail Downer Zwemke

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

Mccleskey V. Kemp: The Supreme Court Pulls The Switch On Future Judicial Challenges To The Death Penalty, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (1988), William H. Jones

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preventive Detention: Illinois Takes A Tenative Step Towards A Safer Community, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1988), Carolyn Nickels Offenbach

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Illinois Videotape Statute In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Reconciling The Defendant's Constitutional Rights With The State's Interest In Prosecuting Defenders, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 331 (1988), Denise C. Hockley-Cann

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Robert H. Bork's Decisions In Which He Wrote No Opinion: An Analysis Of The Regulatory And Benefit Cases, Robert A. Anthony

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pleading The Fifth: Record Custodians And The Act-Of-Production Doctrine, Amy Schlesinger Rich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do The United States Sentencing Guidelines Deprive Defendants Of Due Process?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

It is difficult to determine whether due process requires individualized sentencing because sentencing goals and practices have varied greatly during the course of this nation's history. A court applying Judge Bork's original intent doctrine of constitutional interpretation would probably reach a result different from that reached by a court employing a more liberal view of due process protections.1o It is likely that liberals and conservatives on the current Supreme Court would disagree on whether the Guidelines violate due process.

This article argues that the Guidelines can be saved and can satisfy due process requirements if the Supreme Court interprets the …