Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Burdens Of Proof In Criminal Procedure, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The Supreme Court’s haphazard approach to allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure has created a system in which constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless simply because defendants are required to prove things they cannot possibly know. Even though allocations of the burden of proof often drive litigation outcomes, the Court has failed to establish clear burden allocation structures for cases arising under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving lower courts split about how to allocate the burdens. When the Supreme Court does allocate burdens, it often does so without explanation or consideration of key factors. Recent Supreme …

Prosecutor Transparency Project: Racial Disparities Study (Washtenaw County, Michigan), Grady Bridges, J. J. Prescott

Law & Economics Working Papers

This report investigates and estimates racial disparities in prosecutorial decision-making in the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office (WCPO) from 2017 to 2022. The analysis relies on currently available data resources at the WCPO and examines decision-making at four different junctures in the prosecutorial process: 1) case approval (i.e., warrant authorization) and charge selection, 2) habitual-offender designation (under Michigan law), 3) plea bargaining, and 4) diversion and deferral opportunities. Racial disparities appear most visibly at the earliest stages of the criminal justice process, with People of Color substantially overrepresented in the warrant requests the WCPO receives from law enforcement. The data further …

The Expungement Process: Survey Evidence On Applicant Experiences, Mira Edmonds, J.J. Prescott, Sonja Starr, German Marquez Alcala

Articles

Tens of millions of Americans with publicly accessible criminal convictions face significant collateral consequences that affect their employment, housing, and family life, which not only harm these individuals but also limit society’s access to their skills, productivity, and participation. In response, policymakers have enlarged the scope and enhanced the accessibility of criminal-record expungement laws. Little is known, however, about how individuals perceive, navigate, and take advantage of these new, broader laws. This Article presents findings from a large-scale survey of 1,439 expungement applicants and recipients in Detroit, conducted in partnership with Project Clean Slate (PCS), a city initiative assisting residents …

Bowe V. United States: Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Leah Litman, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are law professors who research, study, teach, and write about the writ of habeas corpus and federal postconviction relief. They share an interest in seeing habeas law applied in a way that ensures the just adjudication of claims.

Perttu V. Richards: Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Margo Schlanger

Appellate Briefs

Amici are professors of law who have studied, taught, and written about prisoner litigation and about rights to jury trials. They submit this brief to share their views, based on that experience, on the proper interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act) in light of the important jury trial rights at stake and the practical realities of prisoner litigation.

Law Enforcement Privilege, Rebecca Wexler

Michigan Law Review

You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful …

Younger And Older Abstention, Fred O. Smith Jr.

Michigan Law Review

When victims of systemic rights violations in state criminal proceedings seek federal court relief, governmental defendants often ask federal courts to abstain for reasons of federalism. These arguments frequently disregard the Supreme Court’s emphasis that abstention is a narrow exception to federal courts’ duty to exercise jurisdiction. Lower federal courts are increasingly employing a form of “free-floating federalism,” diverging from the Supreme Court’s careful balance between comity and individual rights. This has led to lower courts’ significant expansion of criminal abstention doctrine, leaving severe irreparable harm unaddressed in an increasingly broad range of settings, such as pretrial detention and child …

Debunking Criminal Restitution, Lula A. Hagos

Michigan Law Review

Criminal restitution—the money paid by a defendant to a victim—is often overlooked amidst growing scholarly consensus about the adverse impact of criminal court fines and fees. Restitution receives less attention because it is perceived as a fair and unobjectionable sanction with legitimate goals, while fines and fees are now widely condemned as primarily serving as a funding source for local and state governments. Consequently, the animated and extensive discourse around financial punishment largely excludes criminal restitution.

Though criminal restitution may appear to have legitimate penological purposes, it serves to perpetually punish defendants who are poor—the vast majority of those in …

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Law & Economics Working Papers

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using "explicit," "clear," and "unambiguous" statements - or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using "legally magic" words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than …

Confronting Algorithms: Conscience Catching In The Criminal Trial And Beyond, Sherman J. Clark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Using the question of how to treat algorithmic evidence under the Confrontation Clause as an entry point, I argue that the use of AI in ethically salient situations presents a risk. It may cause us to avoid confronting our own responsibility. This matters because facing up to what we do, including what we delegate, can help us grow and thrive. Bearing responsibility can help us nurture vital capacities, including forms of empathy, honesty, and dignity. In the language of ethics, these are eudaimonist virtues—traits and capacities that can help us live well and fully. We should thus find ways of …

The Needless Search For A Founding-Era "Hearsay" Definition, Jeffrey Bellin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Modern Confrontation Clause doctrine permits only unconfronted “out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding.” To operationalize this concept, the Supreme Court identifies “testimonial hearsay” as the Clause’s primary concern. Its opinions regularly dive into the historical record to refine what counts as “testimonial” but ignore that record in defining “hearsay.” This omission cannot last. Cases in the lower courts, and one on the Court’s recent docket, concern testimonial but (arguably) non-hearsay statements. And while confrontation jurisprudence is supposed to be tied to founding-era evidence law, the “hearsay” definition, casually referenced …

The Shadow Of The Law Of The Police, Adam A. Davidson

Michigan Law Review

A review of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable. By Joanna Schwartz.

What Is A Prison?, Grace Y. Li

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Idea of Prison Abolition. By Tommie Shelby.

Crawford At 20: An Introduction To The Symposium, Richard D. Friedman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The twentieth anniversary of Crawford v. Washington provides an ideal opportunity to reflect on the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted with the witnesses against him – on its origins and recent developments, current issues that it presents, paths that it may take, and other changes that it may generate. I am grateful to the Journal of Law Reform for organizing this symposium and to all the participants for having made it a success. In Section 1 of this introductory essay, I offer some comments on the origins, scope, and purpose of the confrontation right. Section 2 discusses …

Crawford's Revolutions, Edward K. Cheng, Monica A. Miecznikowski

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Crawford v. Washington, the starting point for the Supreme Court’s modern Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, has long been described as a “revolution.” At the time of the Crawford decision, it was perfectly natural for commentators to view it as revolutionary: The case upended the existing doctrinal framework under Ohio v. Roberts, which grounded Confrontation in hearsay doctrine. In its place, the Supreme Court placed Confrontation doctrine on originalist underpinnings, requiring that any “testimonial” statement be subject to cross-examination. The resulting uncertainty was destabilizing, and in the intervening years, courts, practitioners, and commentators alike have struggled to predict and interpret …

A Proposal To Replace The Hearsay Rules, Richard D. Friedman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This essay proposes a set of rules to replace entirely the 800 series of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the hearsay rules, with a very different, and relatively compact, set of procedural rules. (The current hearsay rules run over 3000 words; the proposed rules run under 1000.) The change will improve truth-determination, make trials more efficient, and better protect the rights of criminal defendants and other parties. There would, of course, be some adjustment period for lawyers and judges as they get accustomed to a different system, but I am confident that it would soon be easier to administer than …

Forfeiture By Wrongdoing In Domestic Homicide Cases: Where Are We Now?, Caren Myers Morrison

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One of the few common law exceptions to the rule that every criminal defendant enjoys the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” is if the defendant has deliberately caused a witness’s unavailability. That a defendant could forfeit his confrontation rights through his own wrongdoing developed from the equitable concept that “no man shall profit from his wrong.” When the Supreme Court narrowed the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing in Giles v. California, it seemed like it had dealt a serious blow to the prosecution of domestic homicide cases. Rather than being able to introduce …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

Crawford And The Common Law Criminal Trial, Robert K. Kry

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Three weeks after the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia delivered the keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. Justice Scalia expounded on his views of when United States courts should and should not rely on foreign law. He urged that courts interpreting a treaty should look to how foreign courts construe the same instrument, on the reasonable assumption that treaty partners would want to strive for a consistent interpretation. By contrast, he took a dim view of relying on modern foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, as the Court …

Crawford And Criminal Justice, William Ortman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This essay reflects on whether Crawford v. Washington, now in its third decade of life, matters to criminal justice. For all the talk of Crawford as “revolutionary,” that is, has it made any real difference to the world of crime and punishment? I’ve confronted the question before. In a 2021 essay, I argued that Crawford probably has modest real-world effects. Crawford articulated a right that criminal defendants can exercise only at trial. In an adjudicatory system bereft of trials, trial rights don’t count for much. They impact plea outcomes only when they confer bargaining power sufficient to offset prosecutors’ …

A Law At War With Itself: Character Evidence And The Doctrine Of Chances, Len Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

Certain legal principles have raging within them a kind of civil war. Important but abstract policy concerns pull the doctrine in one direction; common sense and practical experience pull it in another. Casualties ensue.

Perhaps no body of legal doctrine better exemplifies this sort of internal conflict than the general ban on character evidence, as embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1). That rule states: “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character or trait.” The rule has deep roots in the …

The Joy Of The Fight: What Litigators Can Learn From The Martial Arts, Len Niehoff, Tim Lynch

Articles

You walk into a martial arts training studio (in Japanese styles, a dojo) and you scan the room. Everything going on here looks, well, unpleasant. In one corner, you observe a group of students performing kata, choreographed sequences of kicks, punches, and blocks that simulate the experience of fighting multiple opponents. Sweat pours off them. In another corner, you see two students engaged in sparring exercises, or kumite. The sharp, smacking noise of one student striking the protective pads worn by another carries across the room. In a third corner, you notice students doing push-ups, working their muscles until their …

Reimagining Youngblood's Bad Faith Requirement: Safeguarding Criminal Defendants' Due Process Rights Through A Burden-Shifting Framework, Rita Elfarissi

Michigan Law Review

Criminal defendants face an uphill battle when attempting to prove that the government’s loss or destruction of evidence that could have played a significant role in their defense deprived them of their constitutional due process rights. To make this showing, the defendant must prove that the government lost or destroyed the evidence in bad faith. This requirement is problematic because direct evidence illustrating the subjective intent of the government officials who lost or destroyed the evidence is unlikely to exist, and in the off chance it does, the prosecution is unlikely to freely hand it over to the defendant. Thus, …

Revocation At The Founding, Jacob Schuman

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court is divided over the constitutional law of community supervision. The justices disagree about the nature of a defendant’s liberty under supervision, the rights that apply when the government punishes violations, and the relationship between parole, probation, and supervised release. These divisions came to a head in 2019’s United States v. Haymond, where the justices split 4–1–4 on whether the right to a jury trial applies to revocation of supervised release. Their opinions focused on the original understanding of the jury right at the time the Constitution was ratified.

This Article aims to settle the debate over …

Committee Prosecution: Using Expert Opinion To Make Criminal Justice Descisions More Impactful, Ellison Berryhill

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Those uninitiated to the reality of the United States’ criminal justice framework may believe that judges are the most powerful actors in the system. These casual observers watch crime shows filled with trials where judges make rulings and yell at people who are out of line. Viewers may believe in the adversarial system as a war between zealous prosecutors seeking justice and defense attorneys fighting for their client’s innocence. They may think of judges as neutral arbiter who makes the ultimate decisions. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Alternatively, casual observers may think that the jury is the most powerful …

Collusive Prosecution, Ben A. Mcjunkin, J.J. Prescott

Law & Economics Working Papers

In this Article, we argue that increasingly harsh collateral consequences have surfaced an underappreciated and undertheorized dynamic of criminal plea bargaining. Collateral consequences that mostly or entirely benefit third parties (such as other communities or other states) create an interest asymmetry that prosecutors and defendants can exploit in plea negotiations. In particular, if a prosecutor and a defendant can control the offense of conviction (often through what some term a “fictional plea”), they can work together to evade otherwise applicable collateral consequences, such as deportation or sex-offender registration and notification. Both parties arguably benefit: Prosecutors can leverage collateral consequences to …

Error Aversions And Due Process, Brandon L. Garrett, Gregory Mitchell

Michigan Law Review

William Blackstone famously expressed the view that convicting the innocent constitutes a much more serious error than acquitting the guilty. This view is the cornerstone of due process protections for those accused of crimes, giving rise to the presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof required for criminal convictions. While most legal elites share Blackstone’s view, the citizen jurors tasked with making due process protections a reality do not share the law’s preference for false acquittals over false convictions.

Across multiple national surveys sampling more than 12,000 people, we find that a majority of Americans consider false acquittals …

Collusive Prosecution, Ben A. Mcjunkin, J.J. Prescott

Articles

In this Article, we argue that increasingly harsh collateral consequences have surfaced an underappreciated and undertheorized dynamic of criminal plea bargaining. Collateral consequences that mostly or entirely benefit third parties (such as other communities or other states) create an interest asymmetry that prosecutors and defendants can exploit in plea negotiations. In particular, if a prosecutor and a defendant can control the offense of conviction (often through what some term a “fictional plea”), they can work together to evade otherwise applicable collateral consequences, such as deportation or sex-offender registration and notification. Both parties arguably benefit: Prosecutors can leverage collateral consequences to …

Constitutional Losses And (Some) Statutory Wins For Criminal Defendants: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2022-2023 Term., Eve Brensike Primus, Mark Rucci

Articles

The Supreme Court’s 2022–23 Term included a number of important statutory interpretation rulings, as well as significant cases concerning the scope of the Confrontation Clause; the Venue, Vicinage, and Double Jeopardy Clauses; the federal courts’ ability to entertain claims of legal innocence; and the contours of the adequate and independent state ground doctrine. It also was the first term for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—the first former public defender and first Black woman to join the centuries-old institution. Although Justice Jackson joined a Court ruptured along ideological lines and confronting serious challenges to its legitimacy and ethical standards, she quickly proved …

Gentlewomen Of The Jury, Vivian N. Rotenstein, Valerie P. Hans

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

This Article undertakes a contemporary assessment of the role of women on the jury. In 1946, at a time when few women served on U.S. juries, the all-male Supreme Court opined in Ballard v. United States: “The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence of one on the other is among the imponderables.” Three-quarters of a century later, women’s legal and social status has changed dramatically, with increased participation in the labor force, expanded leadership roles, and the …