Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse Verdict Forms

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Garner V. Jones: Restricting Prisoners' Ex Post Facto Challenges To Changes In Parole Systems, Robert A. Renjel

Mercer Law Review

In Garner v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court laid out rules for lower courts to determine whether granting parole boards the discretion to change retroactively the frequency of parole reconsideration hearings would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court held that a prisoner challenging one of these statutes must produce certain evidence that the statute "created a significant risk of increasing his punishment."

Ohler V. United States: Defendants Waive Appellate Review By Reducing The Sting Of Prior Conviction Impeachment Evidence, Misty Dawn Garrett

Mercer Law Review

In Ohler v. United States, the United States Supreme Court adopted a per se waiver rule holding that a defendant waives the right to appeal an in limine ruling permitting the government to impeach the defendant with evidence of a prior conviction when the defendant introduced the evidence on direct examination in an effort to reduce the sting of the evidence.

Carruthers V. State: Thou Shalt Not Make Direct Religious References In Closing Argument, Marcus S. Henson

Mercer Law Review

In Carruthers v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court addressed the very "precise line" that must be drawn between religious references that are permissible and those that must not be allowed in the sentencing phase of capital cases. Specifically, the court held that the prosecutor's use of direct quotations from the Bible "invoked a higher moral authority and diverted the jury from the discretion provided to them under state law." The court ultimately found that the allowance of these direct religious references, over the objection of defense counsel, constituted an impermissible violation of defendant's right to due process.

Cowboy Prosecutors And Subpoenas For Incriminating Evidence: The Consequences And Correction Of Excess, Robert P. Mosteller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Grouping Fraud And Money Laundering Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Need For Uniformity And Proportionality, Christopher J. Fernandez

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein

Michigan Law Review

The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …

Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid

Michigan Law Review

Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …

Establishing Uniformity: The Need For A Per Se Rule Against The Grouping Of Money Laundering And Fraud Counts Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Eric C. Tew

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …

The Troubling Influence Of Equality In Constitutional Criminal Procedure: From Brown To Miranda, Furman And Beyond, Scott W. Howe

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article identifies and critiques a view of the criminal-procedure clauses in the Bill of Rights that is revealed in Supreme Court decisions after Brown v. Board of Education. Professor Howe argues that the Court has gone astray in constructing these clauses by focusing on equality. He contends that the criminal-procedure clauses are better understood as discrete protections of individual liberty than as reflecting a unified theory or separate theories about equality. Building on this perspective, the Article proposes a reformulation of doctrine in varied realms of constitutional criminal procedure, including police -interrogation, capital sentencing, and administrative searches and seizures. …

Problems In Domestic Violence: Should Victims Be Forced To Participate In The Prosecution Of Their Abusers?, Thomas L. Kirsch Ii

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice In The Supreme Court: A Review Of United States Supreme Court Criminal And Habeas Corpus Decisions (October 4, 1999 - October 1, 2000), Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Appeals In The Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals: Structure, Procedure, And Recent Cases, Mark A. Drumbl, Kenneth S. Gallant

Scholarly Articles

Two international criminal tribunals are developing and remaking much of international humanitarian law—the law of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. These are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”)and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”).

For the first time, appellate practice and procedure have become vital to the development of international humanitarian law. These two ad hoc Tribunals have substantial appellate as well as trial jurisdiction. In this, they are quite different from their historic predecessors, the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo following World War II, which had no appellate jurisdiction or appellate …

The Cooperation Of States With The International Criminal Court, Valerie Oosterveld

Law Publications

This Article explores the various cooperation obligations included within the Rome Statute related to arrest and surrender; investigation and evidence gathering; privileges and immunities of Court officials; witness protection; enforcement of ICC sentences, fines, and forfeiture orders; and offenses against the administration of justice. The nature of each obligation will be discussed within the context of the Rome Statute itself, its negotiation history, and a comparison of how Canada, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have implemented their obligations to cooperate with the ICC into their domestic law, to the end of providing technical assistance to States undertaking the important task …

Voluntariness With A Vengeance: Miranda And A Modern Alternative, Jonathan B. Zeitlin

St. Thomas Law Review

One of the most famous opinions in American jurisprudence is that of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Court's prophylactic rule in Miranda has been followed in both state and federal courts with little derogation for over thirty years. On February 8, 1999, in Dickerson v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ignored Miranda, turning instead to 18 U.S.C. § 3501, a relatively obscure federal statute enacted in 1968 in response to the Court's decision in Miranda. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral …

Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Jury Poll And A Dissenting Juror: When A Juror In A Criminal Trial Disavows Their Verdict In Open Court, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 45 (2001), Karl Moltzen

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Empirically Based Comparison Of American And European Regulatory Approaches To Police Investigation, Christopher Slobogin

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article takes a comparative and empirical look at two of the most significant methods of police investigation: searches for and seizures of tangible evidence and interrogation of suspects. It first compares American doctrine regulating these investigative tools with the analogous rules predominant in Europe. It then discusses research on the American system that sheds light on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two regulatory regimes.

The Commercial Activity Exception Under The Fsia, Personhood Under The Fifth Amendment And Jurisdiction Over Foreign States: A Partial Roadmap For The Supreme Court In The New Millennium, Stephen J. Leacock

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.