Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (156)
- Criminal Law (77)
- Supreme Court of the United States (62)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (48)
- Courts (39)
-
- Evidence (38)
- Fourteenth Amendment (28)
- Fourth Amendment (28)
- Jurisprudence (19)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (13)
- Judges (13)
- State and Local Government Law (12)
- Legal History (11)
- Legislation (10)
- Law and Society (9)
- Jurisdiction (8)
- Law and Race (8)
- Litigation (8)
- Common Law (6)
- First Amendment (6)
- Legal Writing and Research (6)
- Civil Procedure (5)
- Juvenile Law (5)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (4)
- Legal Profession (4)
- Legal Remedies (4)
- National Security Law (4)
- Law and Politics (3)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (78)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (23)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (8)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (6)
- Pepperdine University (5)
-
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (5)
- University of Richmond (5)
- Cornell University Law School (4)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (4)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (4)
- University of Colorado Law School (4)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- University of Denver (3)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (3)
- Boston University School of Law (2)
- Emory University School of Law (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (2)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Maine School of Law (2)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (45)
- Articles (23)
- Touro Law Review (22)
- Supreme Court Case Files (7)
- Book Chapters (5)
-
- Pepperdine Law Review (5)
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
- Cardozo Law Review (4)
- Catholic University Law Review (4)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Faculty Scholarship (4)
- Oklahoma Law Review (4)
- Publications (4)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (4)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (3)
- Faculty Articles (3)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (3)
- Journal Articles (3)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship (3)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Florida State University Law Review (2)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2)
- Maine Law Review (2)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (2)
- NYLS Law Review (2)
- Northwestern University Law Review (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 151 - 180 of 206
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Extending The Self-Incrimination Clause To Persons In Fear Of Foreign Prosecution, Bret A. Fausett
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 …
Colorado V. Spring, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Colorado V. Spring, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Fifth Amendment Privilege For Producing Corporate Documents, Nancy J. King
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 …
Police Interrogation And Confessions, Yale Kamisar
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.
Compelling Testimony In Alaska: The Coming Rejection Of Use And Derivative Use Immunity, Jeff M. Feldman
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 …
Questioning Miranda, Gerald M. Caplan
Questioning Miranda, Gerald M. Caplan
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Article argues that the Supreme Court should go further and reexamine the basic principles underlying Miranda. Although its impact has been tamed by interpretation and practice, and although the hour is late," a case can be made for overruling Miranda. Miranda was not a wise or necessary decision, nor has Miranda proved to be, as is generally contended, a harmless one. It sent our jurisprudence on a hazardous detour by introducing novel conceptions of the proper relationship between the suspect and authority. It accentuated just those features of our system that manifest the least regard for truth seeking, that …
The Admissibility Of Prior Silence To Impeach The Testimony Of Criminal Defendants, Rex A. Sharp
The Admissibility Of Prior Silence To Impeach The Testimony Of Criminal Defendants, Rex A. Sharp
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note focuses on whether a defendant who was called as a witness at the prior, severed trial of a codefendant and refused to testify by invoking the fifth amendment can subsequently be impeached by this silence at his own trial. In addition to the obvious implications this issue has for severed criminal trials, the factors considered when deciding whether impeachment by silence should be allowed generally are in sharpest focus in this factual setting. Thus, the analysis of the constitutional and evidentiary questions this Note enlists to argue that impeachment by silence in this context is permissible applies as …
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul
The Applicability Of Miranda Warnings To Non-Felony Offenses: Is The Proper Standard "Custodial Interrogation" Or "Severity Of The Offense"?, Kenneth W. Gaul
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that the proper standard for determining the necessity of the Miranda warnings for any offense is the existence of custodial interrogation. When interrogation for non-felony offenses takes place in a custodial atmosphere, Miranda warnings should be required, as they are for more serious offenses. Part I summarizes the two basic approaches taken by courts that have confronted the question of the applicability of the Miranda warnings to non-felony offenses. Part Ill argues that neither the rationale for the Miranda doctrine nor the roots of the fifth amendment support a distinction based on the severity of the offense …
Miranda: The Case, The Man, And The Players, Yale Kamisar
Miranda: The Case, The Man, And The Players, Yale Kamisar
Reviews
On the eve of America's bicentennial, the American Bar Association told its members of a plan to publish a book about the "milestone events" in 200 years of American legal history, and invited them to vote on the milestones to be included. When the balloting was over, Miranda v. Arizona1 - "the high-water mark" of the Warren Court's revolution in American criminal procedure2 - had received the fourth highest number of votes.3 I venture to say that if members of the general public had been asked to list the "most regrettable" or "most unfortunate" milestones in American legal history, Miranda …
The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review
The Burden Of Proof In Double Jeopardy Claims, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that once the defendant raises a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim that turns on a question of fact, the government should have the burden of proving that the two crimes charged are actually different. Part I traces the development of the law and the major factors behind recent federal court scrutiny of the traditional rule. Part II argues that constitutional considerations require courts to shift the burden of proof to the government, not only when practical considerations suggest the shift, but in all cases turning on questions of fact. Finally, Part III reconciles this allocation with the well-established …
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 …
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
If the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer are any indication, Miranda v. Arizona has evoked much anger and spread much sorrow among judges, lawyers and professors. In the months and years ahead, such reaction is likely to be translated into microscopic analyses and relentless, probing criticism of the majority opinion. During this period of agonizing appraisal and reappraisal, I think it important that various assumptions and assertions in the dissenting opinions do not escape attention.
The Iranian Litigation: Implications For American Business Interests, Charles G. Labella
The Iranian Litigation: Implications For American Business Interests, Charles G. Labella
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, And Foreign Prosecution: The Saga Of The Ryuyo Maru, Jeff M. Feldman
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, And Foreign Prosecution: The Saga Of The Ryuyo Maru, Jeff M. Feldman
Articles
In 1979, the M/V Ryuyo Maru No. 2, a Japanese fishing vessel, went aground off the coast of Alaska. During the course ofthe United States Coast Guard's investigation into the cause of themarine casualty, the captain of the vessel and several seamen attempted to avoid giving testimony at the Coast Guard inquest onthe ground that their testimony would tend to incriminate the munder the law of Japan. The ensuing litigation' over the extent towhich the fifth amendment protects witnesses from compulsory self-incrimination where the sole threat of criminal prosecution is by a foreign government contributes to a recent line 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 …
Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley
Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Estelle V. Smith, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
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 …
Constitutional Law - Due Process Clause - Where New Prosecution Is Initiated For Additional Criminal Activity Not Specified In An Original Indictment, Actual Vindictiveness Is The Proper Standard To Determine Whether Such Prosecutorial Conduct Is Constitutionally Permissible, Peter R. Kahana
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Roberts V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Roberts V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Arizona V. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)
Arizona V. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)
Florida State University Law Review
Criminal Law-MISTRIAL DECLARATION-OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION, PROSECUTION MUST DEMONSTRATE HIGH DEGREE OF MANIFEST NECESSITY OR REPROSECUTION WILL BE BARRED
Clark V. State, 363 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1978), Shawn Ettingoff
Clark V. State, 363 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1978), Shawn Ettingoff
Florida State University Law Review
Criminal Law-RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT-OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR MISTRIAL NOW REQUIRED TO PRESERVE IMPROPER COMMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S SILENCE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
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 …
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Is The Exclusionary Rule An 'Illogical' Or 'Unnatural' Interpretation Of The Fourth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
More than 50 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided the Weeks case, barring the use in federal prosecutions of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Silverthorne case, invoking what has come to be known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The justices who decided those cases would, I think, be quite surprised to learn that some day the value of the exclusionary rule would be measured by-and the very life of the rule might depend on-an empirical evaluation of its efficacy in deterring police misconduct. These justices were engaged in a less …
Foreword: Brewer V. Williams--A Hard Look At A Discomfiting Record, Yale Kamisar
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
Competency To Stand Trial In Federal Courts: Conceptual And Constitutional Problems, William T. Pizzi
Competency To Stand Trial In Federal Courts: Conceptual And Constitutional Problems, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.
Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger
Conspiracy And Federal Jurisdiction: From Crimmins To Feola, Mark Berger
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Kauper's 'Judicial Examination Of The Accused' Forty Years Later—Some Comments On A Remarkable Article, Yale Kamisar
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