Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (154)
- Criminal Law (89)
- Courts (86)
- Supreme Court of the United States (85)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (79)
-
- Evidence (77)
- Fourth Amendment (59)
- Fourteenth Amendment (51)
- State and Local Government Law (28)
- Legal History (25)
- Civil Procedure (21)
- Jurisdiction (19)
- Jurisprudence (17)
- Legal Writing and Research (17)
- Judges (16)
- Law and Society (15)
- Common Law (14)
- Legislation (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (12)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (12)
- Legal Profession (12)
- Science and Technology Law (12)
- Military, War, and Peace (11)
- Privacy Law (11)
- Law and Race (9)
- Legal Education (9)
- First Amendment (8)
- Juvenile Law (8)
- Keyword
-
- Fifth Amendment (45)
- Police (43)
- United States Supreme Court (42)
- Sixth Amendment (35)
- Due process (34)
-
- Miranda v. Arizona (31)
- Searches (21)
- Self-incrimination (19)
- Confessions (18)
- Testimony (18)
- Murder (17)
- Criminal justice (16)
- Due Process Clause (16)
- Habeas corpus (16)
- Witnesses (15)
- Kamisar (Yale) (13)
- Punishment (13)
- Coercion (12)
- Guilt (12)
- Trials (12)
- Double jeopardy (11)
- Confession (10)
- Dickerson v. United States (10)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (10)
- Juries (10)
- Seizures (10)
- Custodial interrogation (9)
- Death penalty (9)
- Federal courts (9)
- Law reform (9)
- Publication Year
Articles 151 - 180 of 462
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court's post-conviction cases cannot be extended to cases involving jury acquittal and that federal reprosecution after state jury acquittal violates the double jeopardy clause. One can give meaning to the clause, Part Iexplains, only by reference to its underlying constitutional values.Part II suggests that these values, while possibly compatible with federal prosecution after a state conviction, cannot countenance reprosecution after a jury acquittal. Part III proposes that courts determine whether such reprosecution is appropriate by applying the Blockhurger same offense standard: Two offenses are the same unless each requires proof of …
Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley
Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley
Michigan Law Review
In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, Donald Ayer levels a series of attacks on the Griffin decision. Specifically, he maintains that the decision is at once too broad, because it requires "almost automatic reversal where there are any remarks explicitly focused on the defendant's silence and the inference of guilt to be drawn from it" regardless of the strength of the prosecution's case, and too narrow, because it fails to prevent the natural prejudice against the nontestifying defendant that may arise in the minds of the jurors without any encouragement from prosecutor or judge. Ayer also …
Confessions And The Court, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Confessions And The Court, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Police Interrogation and Confessions: Essays in Law and Policy by Yale Kamisar
Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White
Interrogation Without Questions: Rhode Island V. Innis And United States V. Henry, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court defined "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda; and in United States v. Henry, it defined "deliberate elicitation" within the meaning of Massiah. This article explores the implications of Innis and Henry, suggests readings of the new tests consistent with their purposes, and applies the tests to several situations where the scope of the fifth and sixth amendment protections remains unclear.
The Three Faces Of Double Jeopardy: Reflections On Government Appeals Of Criminal Sentences, Peter K. Westen
The Three Faces Of Double Jeopardy: Reflections On Government Appeals Of Criminal Sentences, Peter K. Westen
Michigan Law Review
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United States v. DiFrancesco presents such a test to the law of double jeopardy, raising the question whether the government may unilaterally appeal a defendant's criminal sentence for the purpose of increasing the sentence. The question cannot be answered by facile reference to the text of the fifth amendment, because the terms of the double jeopardy clause are not self-defining. Nor can it be settled by reference to history, because the issue has not arisen with any frequency until now.
The Fifth Amendment And The Inference Of Guilt From Silence: Griffin V. California After Fifteen Years, Donald B. Ayer
The Fifth Amendment And The Inference Of Guilt From Silence: Griffin V. California After Fifteen Years, Donald B. Ayer
Michigan Law Review
This Article will begin with an examination of the historic (and present) purposes underlying the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, upon which any justification of the no-comment rule must ultimately rest. It will explore the danger that these purposes may be thwarted not only when defendants are actually compelled to be witnesses against themselves, but also when significant burdens are placed on defendants who choose not to testify. In Griffin, the Court reasoned that comment on the defendant's silence amounted to such an impermissible burden. But the Court failed to examine the weight of this burden. This failure makes …
The Process Is The Punishment: Handling Cases In A Lower Criminal Court, Michigan Law Review
The Process Is The Punishment: Handling Cases In A Lower Criminal Court, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Book Notice about The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court by Malcolm M. Feeley
Reforming The Federal Grand Jury And The State Preliminary Hearing To Prevent Conviction Without Adjudication, Peter Arenella
Reforming The Federal Grand Jury And The State Preliminary Hearing To Prevent Conviction Without Adjudication, Peter Arenella
Michigan Law Review
It is this Article's thesis that the substitution of plea-bargaining for the criminal trial as our primary method for determining legal guilt requires a fundamental reassessment of our pretrial screening processes. In a system where the prosecutor's decision to file charges is usually followed by a negotiated guilty plea, we can no longer pretend that the pretrial process does not adjudicate the defendant's guilt. Accordingly, this Article argues that it no longer makes sense to rely primarily on the trial to safeguard essential accusatorial principles when pretrial screening devices like the preliminary hearing and the grand jury perform the only …
Search And Seizure: A Treatise On The Fourth Amendment, William H. Erickson
Search And Seizure: A Treatise On The Fourth Amendment, William H. Erickson
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment by Wayne R. LaFave
Land Without Plea Bargaining: How The Germans Do It, John H. Langbein
Land Without Plea Bargaining: How The Germans Do It, John H. Langbein
Michigan Law Review
The present Article demonstrates the error of this universalist theory of plea bargaining by showing how and why one major legal system, the West German, has so successfully avoided any form or analogue of plea bargaining in its procedures for cases of serious crime. The German criminal justice system functions without plea bargaining not by good fortune, but as a result of deliberate policies and careful institutional design whose essential elements are outlined in Part I. Part II addresses the American claims that a clandestine plea bargaining system lurks behind veils of German pretense.
Joint Trials Of Defendants In Criminal Cases: An Analysis Of Efficiencies And Prejudices, Robert O. Dawson
Joint Trials Of Defendants In Criminal Cases: An Analysis Of Efficiencies And Prejudices, Robert O. Dawson
Michigan Law Review
Legislatures and courts, in weighing the relative advantages of joint and separate trials, have unreasonably struck a balance in favor of joint trials. The strongest justification traditionally offered for joint trials is efficiency. This Article shows that courts have greatly exaggerated the supposed efficiencies of joint trials while grossly underestimating the impediments joint trials pose to fair and accurate determinations of individual guilt or innocence. The propriety of joint trials is more than a question of efficiencies. Joint trials usually, although not always, help the prosecutor to get convictions, and thereby modify the balance of advantage in criminal trials. Disputes …
The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen
The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …
Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review
Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In Morrissey, the Court set the level of due process needed in parole revocations. Specifically, it held that the parolee facing •revocation has a right (a) to receive written notice of the claimed parole violations; (b) to hear the evidence against him; (c) to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation); (e) to have a neutral and detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) to be given …
Reconsideration Of The Katz Expectation Of Privacy Test, Michigan Law Review
Reconsideration Of The Katz Expectation Of Privacy Test, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note, by modifying certain aspects of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, offers a theory that attempts to identify the minimum content of the fourth amendment. In the first section, the Note examines the reasonable expectation of privacy test and considers whether it has been or can be applied in a manner that fails to protect the right to have certain minimum expectations of privacy. It analyzes both the "actual" and the "reasonable" expectation requirements, identifies weaknesses inherent in the current application of these requirements, and suggests certain ways in which they might be refined. In the second section, …
The Life And Times Of Boyd V. United States (1886-1976), Michigan Law Review
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
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 …
Away From Waiver: A Rationale For The Forfeiture Of Constitutional Rights In Criminal Procedure, Peter Westen
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 …
Revocation Of Conditional Liberty For The Commission Of A Crime: Double Jeopardy And Self-Incrimination Limitations, Michigan Law Review
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
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
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
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
Judicial Examination Of The Accused--A Remedy For The Third Degree, Paul G. Kauper
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
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 …
A Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under Article 15 Of The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Michigan Law Review
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
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 …
Juvenile Courts--Juveniles In Delinquency Proceedings Are Not Constitutionally Entitled To The Right Of Trial By Jury--Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania, Michigan Law Review
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
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
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
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 …
The Standard Of Proof In Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, James Hillson Cohen
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 …