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 181 - 206 of 206
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
United States V. Nobles, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
United States V. Nobles, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
The Fifth Amendment And Compelled Testimony: Practical Problems In The Wake Of Kastigar, E. R. Harding
The Fifth Amendment And Compelled Testimony: Practical Problems In The Wake Of Kastigar, E. R. Harding
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Michigan V. Tucker, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Michigan V. Tucker, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
The Search And Seizure Of Private Papers: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Considerations, Steven H. Shiffrin
The Search And Seizure Of Private Papers: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Considerations, Steven H. Shiffrin
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
There is a recognizable factual distinction between the search and seizure of private papers and the search and seizure of non-documentary items. It is difficult, however, to decide when such a distinction should assume constitutional dimensions. Specifically, are there circumstances under which private papers should be immune from search and seizure? In a 1967 landmark case, Warden v. Hayden, the United States Supreme Court raised doubts concerning the continued validity of decades of settled law on this important issue. Warden's reopening of this problem aroused the curiosity of commentators, spurred new policy arguments in the American Law Institute, divided …
Sarno V. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Sarno V. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Kastigar V. United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Kastigar V. United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
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 …
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
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.
'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
The primary conceptual hurdle confronting the Miranda Court was the "legal reasoning" that any and all police interrogation is unaffected by the privilege against self-incrimination because such interrogation does not involve any kind of judicial process for the taking of testimony; inasmuch as police officers have no legal authority to compel statements of any kind, there is no legal obligation, ran the argument, to which a privilege can apply. See, e.g., the discussion and authorities collected in Kamisar, A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the "New" Fifth Amendment and the Old "Voluntariness" Test, 65 MICH. L. REv. …
Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel
Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
My first task is to explain to some degree the nature of the problem embodied in our title. This book has been designated as "Escobedo-The Second Round." What we will be discussing is a series of cases, decided in June, 1966, the most noteworthy of which is Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)]. In these cases, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a new set of standards governing the introduction in evidence of statements obtained from the defendant through police interrogation. Actually, to a degree these standards were not entirely new. They had been suggested, at least in part, …
The Citizen On Trial: The New Confession Rules, Yale Kamisar
The Citizen On Trial: The New Confession Rules, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Commenting on why it has taken the United States so long to apply "the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel to the proceedings in the stationhouse as well as to those in the courtroom" - as the Supreme Court did in Miranda v. Arizona - this author notes that, "To a large extent this is so because here, as elsewhere, there has been a wide gap between the principles to which we aspire and the practices we actually employ."
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
Articles
F the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer3 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.
Has The Court Left The Attorney General Behind? The Bazelon-Katzenbach Letters On Poverty, Equality, And The Administration Of Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Distribution of the first preliminary draft of the proposed American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure last June touched off a brisk exchange of letters between Chief Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who maintained that the proposed code left a good deal to be desired, and Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, who, although he did not explicitly treat any provision of the preliminary draft, sharply challenged the conception of equality underlying Bazelon's criticism of it. By now, both the code, and the Bazelon-Katzenbach correspondence which it evoked, are …
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb
Michigan Law Review
Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …
Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The Jencks Act like the rule it purportedly reaffirmed, was designed to insure "justice." Although the stated purpose of the act was to preserve the rights of any defendant under due process of law, the question remains unresolved whether, in articulating the rule in terms of "justice," the Court in Jencks v. United States incorporated it into the requirements of due process. To be sure, the underlying intent of both the Court and Congress is unclear, but of far more concern than the intent is whether the Jencks Act, in fact, violates the constitutional mandates of the Fifth and Sixth …
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Danger Of Prosecution In Other Jurisdictions, George R. Haydon, Jr.
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Danger Of Prosecution In Other Jurisdictions, George R. Haydon, Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant, a witness called by the New Hampshire attorney general in an investigation of subversive activities, was granted statutory immunity in New Hampshire from criminal prosecution which might arise from his testimony and was ordered to testify. Since any disclosures would create serious danger of prosecution by the United States and Massachusetts, whose agencies were also investigating his activities, defendant refused to testify despite the grant of immunity, invoking the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the state constitution. He was found guilty of contempt, subject to his exceptions regarding the constitutionality of the immunity statute. On hearing before the state …
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on four counts of willfully evading federal income taxes due for the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. His motion before trial to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was firmly convinced that there could have been no legal or competent evidence before the grand jury was denied by the trial court. At the conclusion of the government's case, and again just before the case went to the jury, counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that only hearsay evidence offered by three revenue agents had …
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Federal Immunity Statute Applicable To State Court, Raymond R. Trombadore S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Federal Immunity Statute Applicable To State Court, Raymond R. Trombadore S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
ln response to a summons, petitioner appeared to testify before a congressional committee investigating crime, and confessed to having run a gambling business in Maryland. This confession was used in the criminal court of Baltimore to convict petitioner of conspiring to violate the state's anti-lottery laws. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which rejected petitioner's contention that use of the committee testimony was forbidden by a federal statute which provides that no testimony given by a witness in congressional inquiries "shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court." On …
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right Of Alien Enemy To Judicial Review Of Deportation Proceeding, Robert P. Griffin
Constitutional Law-Due Process-Right Of Alien Enemy To Judicial Review Of Deportation Proceeding, Robert P. Griffin
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner, a German alien enemy, had been arrested and interned during the war by virtue of broad summary powers granted the Chief Executive by the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. The act subjects alien enemies to apprehension, detention, and deportation upon order of the President "whenever there is a declared war . . . . " Under authority of the act, the President, on July 14, 1945, ordered the removal of all alien enemies "who shall be deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous to the public peace . . . . " Though the act makes no provision …
Federal Courts - Rule 20 Of Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure - Constitutionality, William Burnett Harvey
Federal Courts - Rule 20 Of Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure - Constitutionality, William Burnett Harvey
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure, Howard A. Jacobs S.Ed.
Constitutional Law-Search And Seizure, Howard A. Jacobs S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The most important step in the development of this constitutional provision came in 1886 in the famous case of Boyd v. United States. There the Court gave life to the Fourth Amendment by recognizing its intimate relation to the Fifth Amendment; thus laying the foundation for the federal rule that the Fifth Amendment protects every person from incrimination by the use of evidence obtained through search or seizure made in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. With the exception of a temporary setback in 1903, this rule, as restated in the Weeks case, has effectively weathered a …
Constitutional Law - Criminal Law And Procedure - Presence Of Accused During Arguments Of Law, Arthur B. Lathrop
Constitutional Law - Criminal Law And Procedure - Presence Of Accused During Arguments Of Law, Arthur B. Lathrop
Michigan Law Review
The defendant was indicted for a felony on charges of wilfully attempting to "evade or defeat'' federal income taxes based on his failure to report money allegedly received by him from "backers" of numbers games in exchange for political protection. On cross-examination he was questioned about certain payments made in the year following the ones on which the indictment was based. His attorney objected on the ground that the question was going to be the subject of another indictment against the defendant, and asked that the jury be dismissed while an argument was had upon the point of law raised. …
Criminal Law And Procedure - Admissibility Of Confessions - Exhortations To Tell The Truth, Dan K. Cook
Criminal Law And Procedure - Admissibility Of Confessions - Exhortations To Tell The Truth, Dan K. Cook
Michigan Law Review
Defendant, while in the custody of police officers, confessed to the crime of murder. It was shown that the police officers during the course of defendant's examination, stated to the defendant that "it was better for him to tell the whole truth," and ''You are not telling the truth, give us the truth on this," "You might as well tell the truth; to me now," "I advise you to tell the truth in this case." In the subsequent prosecution of the defendant for murder, it was held that the confession was properly admissible notwithstanding these statements by the officers. Commonwealth …
Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal By State - Constitutionality Of Statutes-Due Process Of Law, Edward D. Ransom
Criminal Law And Procedure - Appeal By State - Constitutionality Of Statutes-Due Process Of Law, Edward D. Ransom
Michigan Law Review
Developing as a result of a period when an accused person was placed at a tremendous disadvantage at the hands of tyrannical judges exercising an unconscionable abuse of power, the concept that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" was put into the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and into many of the state constitutions. As a part of this double jeopardy concept, the American courts, from the first, established the rule that the state should not be allowed to appeal in a criminal prosecution. The accused, …