Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Appealability, Under The Collateral Order Doctrine, Of Orders Denying Motions For Appointment Of Counsel In Federal Civil Litigation After Richardson-Merrell, Inc. V. Koller, Kevin G. Dumbach

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Colorado V. Connelly: The Gratuitous Union Of Voluntariness And State Coercion, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 199 (1987), James P. Byrne Jr.

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Encouragement And The Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 661 (1987), Barry D. Green

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Procedure — Self-Incrimination — Court May Compel Witnesses To Testify Before A Grand Jury Who Are Immune From Prosecution In The United States, But Amenable To Prosecution In A Foreign Jurisdiction. United States V. Under Seal, 794 F.2d 920 (4th Cir.), Cert. Denied, 107 S. Ct. 331 (1986), Ellen Beth Berkow

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silence As A Trial Strategy After Strickland And Cronic: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel?Nic : The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel?, Jo Ellen Silberstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Salerno Challenge To The Bail Reform Act Of 1984, Aba Heiman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Extending The Self-Incrimination Clause To Persons In Fear Of Foreign Prosecution, Bret A. Fausett

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Note will examine the rationale, policies, and history behind the self-incrimination clause and will demonstrate the privilege's importance as an individual right and as a check on police power. Only by exploring the purposes and policies behind the privilege--an approach condoned by the Supreme Court--is one able to formulate the best answer to whether the self-incrimination clause extends to persons in fear of foreign prosecution. An understanding of what the privilege is supposed to protect will lead to a better understanding of the scope of this important constitutional guarantee. This Note will then focus on recent cases in which …

The Fourth Amendment Today: A Bicentennial Appraisal, Wayne R. Lafave

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Preventative Pretrial Detention And The Failure Of Interest-Balancing Approaches To Due Process, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

This article, echoing Highmore's treatise of 1783, maintains that neither a legitimate nor a very important governmental interest can justify preventive detention in the absence of significant proof of past wrongdoing or an inability to control one's behavior. Both the Supreme Court's neglect of this issue and Congress' similar neglect in the preventive detention provisions of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 reveal the extent to which cost-benefit analysis has captured American law and threatened core concepts of individual dignity.

The article does not oppose all forms of preventive pretrial detention. To the contrary, it recognizes that the detention …

Mccleskey V. Kemp, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: Not The "Expressed Juice Of The Woolly-Headed Thistle", Keith A. Fabi

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Sixth Amendment—Significance Of Testimony Constitutes A Factor In Determining Right Of Confrontation, Brendan M. Donahue

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifth Amendment Privilege For Producing Corporate Documents, Nancy J. King

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a person should be able to assert her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination when her act of producing corporate documents pursuant to a subpoena causes her to make testimonial admissions that are incriminating. Part I briefly examines the two approaches the Supreme Court has used to decide claims of self-incrimination for records production. First, it explains the Court's traditional entity doctrine which, by focusing on the nature of the documents and the capacity in which they are held, has prohibited records producers from invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the records produced are those …

Section 3142(E) Of The 1984 Bail Reform Act: Rebuttable Presumption Or Mandatory Detention?, Evan Shapiro

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Criminal Procedure—Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of The Insane, Jonathan Taylor

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure In A Conservative Age: A Time To Rediscover The Critical Nonconstitutional Issues, Richard S. Frase

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Attorney Loyalty And Client Perjury - A Postscript To Nix V. Whiteside, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

How much, if at all, can a criminal defense lawyer cooperate in his or her client's decision to commit perjury? Courts, commentators, and bar committees have grappled with this question for years without offering clear or consistent guidelines. Any principled response must take into account some very hard questions. Under what circumstances, for instance, does the lawyer ever really "know" that his client's proposed testimony is false? Is it sufficient if the lawyer simply disbelieves his client's story, or that of his client's witnesses? Does it make any difference if the attorney learns of a plan to perjure during the …

Police Interrogation And Confessions, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

In the police interrogation room, where, until the second third of the century, police practices were unscrutinized and virtually unregulated, constitutional ideals collide with the grim realities of law enforcement.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Procedure — Absent A Showing Of Prejudice To The Defendant, Due Process Is Not Violated By Prosecutor's Contact With Counsel For Defense Witness In An Effort To Prevent Perjury. United States V. Teague, 737 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1984), Cert. Denied, 105 S.Ct. 913 (1985), Dennis Patrick Mcglone

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Constitutional Criminal Procedure — Despite Discrepancy Between Prior Description And Defendant's Actual Appearance, Eyewitness' Testimony Of Pretrial And In-Court Identifications Of Defendant Is Sufficient Evidence To Sustain A Conviction. Branch V. State, 305 Md. 177, 502 A.2d 496 (1986), Lisa Kristine Hoffman

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, James Boyd White

Book Chapters

After the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) established a uniform set of procedures for the trial of civil cases in federal courts, Congress authorized the supreme court to make rules for the trial of federal criminal cases as well. With two Justices dissenting, the Supreme Court adopted the rules in 1944 and submitted them to Congress, which, by silence, approved them.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

The Death Penalty, Ellen Y. Suni

Faculty Works

In 1977, the Missouri legislature adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme defining capital murder and prescribing procedures to be utilized in imposing the death penalty in this state. After making minor revisions in the scheme, the legislature substantially revamped the homicide statutes in 1983. Included in this revision were changes in the definition of the substantive offense and revisions in the grounds and procedures for imposition of the death penalty. These legislative revisions and judicial interpretations have substantially broadened the class of defendants to whom the death penalty is applicable and substantially decreased the likelihood of successful appeal from a sentence …

Administrative Search And Seizure Whither The Warrant, Jack M. Kress, Carole D. Iannelli

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Dui Roadblocks: Drunk Drivers Take A Toll On The Fourth Amendment, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 983 (1986), Lazaro Fernandez

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Malley V. Briggs: The Court Offers A Civil Remedy For Fourth Amendment Violations On The Wake Of An Eroding Exclusionary Rule, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1101 (1986), Ellen Keefe-Garner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Subpoenas To Criminal Defense Lawyers: Proposal For Limits, Ellen Y. Suni

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.

Compelling Testimony In Alaska: The Coming Rejection Of Use And Derivative Use Immunity, Jeff M. Feldman

Articles

Until 1972, when the Supreme Court upheld a federal use andderivative use immunity statute in Kastigar v. United States, virtually every court that considered the issue of the compulsion of testimony favored transactional immunity. It appears that most courts interpreted the Supreme Court's 1892 decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock as finding only transactional immunity constitutional. Since Kastigar, the Alaska Supreme Court has had several opportunities totake sides in the debate over the grant of immunity constitutionally required to compel testimony. On each such occasion, the court has expressed a preference for transactional immunity, but has carefullyavoided resolving the …