Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Life And Times Of Boyd V. United States (1886-1976), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the fourth and fifth amendments create a zone of privacy encompassing an individual's person and property. The government, according to Boyd, cannot enter this zone, either by compelling an individual to testify against himself or by subpoenaing or seizing his books and papers for use as evidence against him in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. The Court found an "intimate relation" between the two amendments such that the search and seizure of books and papers may be "unreasonable" even if conducted pursuant to a court order.

Over time, …

The Prosecutor's Duty To Present Exculpatory Evidence To An Indicting Grand Jury, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note explores the implications of the stark procedural disparities between prosecution by information and prosecution by indictment in those states where both methods are used. It first examines the consequences to a defendant of a prosecutor's decision to seek an indictment rather than proceed by information, the reasons underlying the discretion given the prosecutor to choose between the two methods, and the potential for abuse of this discretionary power. It then considers several alternative approaches for minimizing this potential for abuse. After rejecting possible constitutional objections to the disparity between indictment and information procedures and application of the common-law …

Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

I start in Section I of this Article with an examination of the first major theme of the criminal procedure decisions of the Warren Court, the selective incorporation of Bill of Rights' guarantees into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. My conclusion is that the selective incorporation principle, which provided the doctrinal basis for many of the "liberal" decisions of the Warren Court, remains firmly established today under the Burger Court. Section II of the Article then analyzes the theme of equality and the role it played in Warren Court decisions in the criminal procedure area. It is …

Away From Waiver: A Rationale For The Forfeiture Of Constitutional Rights In Criminal Procedure, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Ten years ago, when I was a student in law school, I learned that it was difficult for a criminal defendant to lose completely his right to assert constitutional defenses. The only way he could relinquish his constitutional defenses, I was told, was by actually "waiving" them. Moreover, in order to establish that a defendant had waived his defenses, the state faced a rigorous test: it had to show, in the famous phrase, that his waiver was "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." In other words, before the state could permanently prevent a defendant from asserting constitutional defenses, it had to show …

Foreword: Brewer V. Williams--A Hard Look At A Discomfiting Record, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In recent decades, few matters have split the Supreme Court, troubled the legal profession, and agitated the public as much as the police interrogation-confession cases. The recent case of Brewer v. Williams3 is as provocative as any, because the Supreme Court there revdrsed the defendant's conviction for the "savage murder of a small child" even though no Justice denied his guilt,4 he was warned of his rights no fewer than five times, 5 and any "interrogation" that might have occurred seemed quite mild.6

Mondale On Mapp, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Any judicial reversal of the Mapp rule threatens to have just the opposite effect. Law enforcement officials are likely to treat a decision that illegally obtained evidence may be admitted into state criminal trials as though that were a practical suspension of the constitutional rules as to lawful arrest, search, and seizure. They are likely to feel that once again "the judiciary is okaying it." With the smell of revelations of FBI "black-bag jobs" and intelligence agency abuses still in the air, is this how we want the Court to contribute to the atmosphere of police practices as we enter …

Fred E. Inbau: 'The Importance Of Being Guilty', Yale Kamisar

Articles

As fate would have it, Fred Inbau graduated from law school in 1932, the very year that, "for practical purposes the modern law of constitutional criminal procedure [began], with the decision in the great case of Powell v. Alabama."1 In "the 'stone age' of American criminal procedure,"2 Inbau began his long fight to shape or to retain rules that "make sense in the light of a policeman's task,"3 more aware than most that so long as the rules do so, "we will be in a stronger position to insist that [the officer] obey them."4

Subsequent Use Of Electronic Surveillance Interceptions And The Plain View Doctrine: Fourth Amendment Limitations On The Omnibus Crime Control Act, Raymond R. Kepner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Despite the critical examination to which many sections of Title III have been subjected, section 2517(5) has received little serious scrutiny from either the courts or the commentators. This note will analyze the constitutionality of the section in terms of the standards which the Supreme Court has articulated, both with respect to the law of search and seizure generally and with respect to electronic surveillance. This examination will reveal that section 2517(5) cannot be sustained under the existing contours of fourth amendment interpretation.

Revocation Of Conditional Liberty For The Commission Of A Crime: Double Jeopardy And Self-Incrimination Limitations, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Persons on deferred sentence, probation, or parole who arguably violate the criminal law may face two proceedings: a hearing to revoke their conditional liberty and a criminal trial. The possibility of two proceedings raises at least two major constitutional questions. First, are the defendant's rights under the double jeopardy or due process clauses violated if the state holds two inquiries into the alleged criminal act? Second, is the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination abridged if the revocation hearing is held before the criminal trial?

Compulsory Process Ii, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the …

Constitutional Restraints On The Exclusion Of Evidence In The Defendant's Favor: The Implications Of Davis V. Alaska, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note, first, examines the Davis methodology for determining whether a foreclosed line of cross-examination warrants protection by the confrontation clause, and suggests a test employable by reviewing courts for making that determination. Then, the Note sketches the contours of the clash, prefigured by Davis, between the right of confrontation and the limitations on cross-examination that result from both the assertion of testimonial privileges and trial court relevance rulings.

Book Review, Arthur H. Sherry

Michigan Law Review

A book review of Criminal Procedure by Abraham S. Goldstein and Leonard Orland, and Cases and Comments on Criminal Procedure by Fred E. Inbau, James R. Thompson, James B. Haddad, James B. Zagel and Gary L. Starkman, Modern Criminal Procedure, 4ht Ed by Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Jerold H. Israel, The Process of Criminal Justice: Investigation by H. Richard Uviller, Criminal Process, 2nd Ed by Lloyd L. Weinreb

Legislative Regulation Of Searches And Seizures: The Michigan Proposals, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

IN March 1971, the Michigan Bar Commissioners appointed a twenty-five-member committee with a directive "to promulgate a recommended revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure codifying existing statutory and case law provisions which, in the judgment of the Committee, should be retained and adding thereto such provisions as the Committee, in its judgment, deems warranted; and to incorporate such recommendations into proposed legislation for submission to the Legislature."' The committee membership included judges, prosecutors, legislators, criminal defense lawyers, law school professors, and representatives of Michigan police and corrections agencies.2 Judge Horace Gilmore served as Chairman, and I served as Reporter.

Judicial Examination Of The Accused--A Remedy For The Third Degree, Paul G. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

Reprint from 30 Michigan Law Review 1224.

In its report on "Lawlessness in Law Enforcement" the Wickersham Commission concludes that in the police systems of a number of American municipalities the "third degree" is very generally practiced as a means of extorting from accused persons under arrest confessions, incriminating statements, and other information of value to the police. The conclusion of the Commission confirms the results of private investigation made in the same field. It is true that the methods of inquiry pursued by the Commission leave doubt as to the accuracy of some of the facts reported. But the …

The Compulsory Process Clause, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article traces the history of compulsory process, from its origin in the English transition from an inquisitional to an adversary system of procedure to its eventual adoption in the American Bill of Rights. Part II examines the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Washington v. Texas, which recognized after a century and a half of silence that the compulsory process clause was designed to enable the defendant not only to produce witnesses, but to put them on the stand and have them heard. Part III studies the implications of compulsory process for the defendant's case, from the …

Kauper's 'Judicial Examination Of The Accused' Forty Years Later—Some Comments On A Remarkable Article, Yale Kamisar

Articles

For a long time before Professor Paul Kauper wrote "Judicial Examination of the Accused" in 1932, and for a long time thereafter, the "legal mind" shut out the de facto inquisitorial system that characterized American criminal procedure. Paul Kauper could not look away. He recognized the "naked, ugly facts" (p. 1224) and was determined to do something about them -more than thirty years before Escobedo v. Illinois' or Miranda v. Arizona.2

A Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under Article 15 Of The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) enables a commanding officer to sentence a service member who has committed a minor infraction to thirty days of correctional custody. The article 15 proceeding offers few procedural safeguards; among the protections lacking is the right to counsel. This Note will consider whether the failure of the military to provide counsel at an article 15 proceeding is consistent with the sixth amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Note first will discuss …

Kirby, Biggers, And Ash: Do Any Constitutional Safeguards Remain Against The Danger Of Convicting The Innocent?, Joseph D. Grano

Michigan Law Review

Even recognizing the danger of misidentification, procedural safeguards, especially constitutional ones, are not readily apparent. Some judges, such as Justice Stewart, find less need for counsel at photographic displays than at lineups; others find an equivalent or even greater need for counsel. Some judges, in approving on-the-scene identifications without counsel, find a guarantee of accuracy in the short interval between the crime and the identification; other judges decry such procedures and find them inherently suggestive. The problem stems directly from the lack of scientific knowledge and inquiry. Therefore, in analyzing the recent identification cases, this Article will draw upon experimental …

The Fourth Amendment As A Way Of Talking About People: A Study Of Robinson And Matlock, James Boyd White

Articles

One way to regard what the Supreme Court has done in the cases it has decided under the Fourth Amendment is to say that it has created a specialized discourse of adjudication, a language in which it can talk about and dispose of the repeated conflicts that arise between an officer engaged in the process of crime control and a citizen upon whose freedom or security he intrudes. The events which bring these two figures together are bewildering in their variety and complexity, and the claims on each side are deeply felt and strenuously made. It has not been easy …

An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Almost every state permits persons convicted of a crime to testify in either their own or another person's behalf. Nonetheless, these states allow evidence of a person's prior criminal conviction to be used to impeach his credibility. The use of this method of impeachment in criminal trials has been the subject of substantial adverse criticism; yet, the practice remains widespread. This article first will discuss the problems that arise from the use of prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes in criminal trials and then will examine several proposals that would restrict the use of such evidence. Finally, the article will …

Societal Concepts Of Criminal Liability For Homicide In Medieval England, Thomas A. Green

Articles

THE early history of English criminal law lies hidden behind the laconic formulas of the rolls and law books. The rules of the law, as expounded by the judges, have been the subject of many studies; but their practical application in the courts, where the jury of the community was the final and unbridled arbiter, remains a mystery: in short, we know little of the social mores regarding crime and crimi- nals. This study represents an attempt to delineate one major aspect of these societal attitudes. Its thesis is that from late Anglo-Saxon times to the end of the middle …

Juvenile Courts--Juveniles In Delinquency Proceedings Are Not Constitutionally Entitled To The Right Of Trial By Jury--Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

At a hearing in the juvenile court of Philadelphia in October 1968, Joseph McKeiver was declared a "delinquent child" and placed on probation by a juvenile court judge who determined that McKeiver had violated a Pennsylvania law. The juvenile court petition charged McKeiver, then sixteen years old, with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods as the result of an incident in which McKeiver and twenty or thirty other youths took twenty-five cents from three teenagers. Despite the fact that the evidence against McKeiver consisted primarily of the weak and inconsistent testimony of two of the victims, the juvenile court judge, …

Invoking Summary Criminal Contempt Procedures--Use Of Abuse? United States V. Dellinger --The "Chicago Seven" Contempts, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In late August of 1968, while delegates to the Democratic National Convention were arriving in Chicago, a group of several thousand demonstrators gathered in the city's Lincoln Park to protest the Convention, the Vietnam War, and the city's refusal to grant the group a permit to hold rallies and marches during the Convention. The week that followed was marred by violent confrontations between the demonstrators and the city's police.1 This violence in Chicago provided the impetus for an indictment by a federal grand jury of the defendants in United States v. Dellinger.

Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purposes behind collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and the current effectiveness of the two doctrines in light of these policies and purposes. The policies of the double jeopardy guarantee are well defined in the federal cases. Basically, it is recognized that the state, having at hand many more resources than the average defendant can muster, should not be allowed to make successive attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Successive prosecutions cause the defendant expense and embarrassment and force him to live …

Preventive Detention During Riots, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

Various studies of the administration of justice during riots establish that persons arrested during riots generally have been detained for substantially longer periods than persons arrested during nonriot situations. This "extra" period of pretrial detention has been the product of quite different practices in different cities, and these practices have been based on several different administrative policies including, but not limited to, preventive detention.

In several cities, extra-lengthy detention resulted from a general judicial policy of setting extraordinarily high bail for the duration of the riot. A prime example was Detroit, where 70% of the bail initially set was in …

Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

My primary area of concentration today is the search made without a warrant. Studies indicate that 95 percent or more of all searches are without warrants. It is quite understandable, then, that most of the search-and-seizure litigation concerns the validity of searches without warrants.

The Standard Of Proof In Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, James Hillson Cohen

Michigan Law Review

Some of those who have studied the question of the appropriate standard of proof in juvenile proceedings have determined that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard-the standard applied in civil cases-is sufficient, and that the criminal standard should not be applied in such cases. Others have suggested that the standard-of proof question is unimportant since the particular standard which is required will seldom, if ever, make a difference to the outcome of a case. The first of these views is the subject to which the bulk of this Article is addressed; the second can be rebutted by the observation that …

American Bar Association Project On Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice: Standards Relating To Trial By Jury (Approved Draft), Melvin M. Belli

Michigan Law Review

A Review of American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to Trial by Jury (Approved Draft). Recommended by the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Prosecutions By Both A City And A State For An Identical Offense As A Violation Of The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy--Waller V. State, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Palko was specifically overruled to the extent that it was inconsistent with the Benton decision. Thus, the theories traditionally used to defend prosecutions by both a city and a state for the same offense must be examined to determine whether they are still valid when the fifth amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy is applied to state proceedings. This Recent Development examines the implications of the Benton decision for those theories.