Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Shrinking Gideon And Expanding Alternatives To Lawyers, Stephanos Bibas

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Getting Real About Gideon: The Next Fifty Years Of Enforcing The Right To Counsel, Cara H. Drinan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Potential Innocence”: Making The Most Of A Bleak Environment For Public Support Of Indigent Defense, Robert P. Mosteller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lamentations, Celebrations, And Innovations: Gideon At 50, John D. King

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Validating The Right To Counsel, Brandon L. Garrett

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gideon Was A Prisoner: On Criminal Defense In A Time Of Mass Incarceration, Abbe Smith

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2007 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Determination Of The Duty Of Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel: An Analysis Of Jones V. Barnes , Catherine D. Purcell

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Grand Jury Subpoena: Is It The Prosecutor's "Ultimate Weapon" Against Defense Attorneys And Their Clients?, Tara A. Flanagan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond “Life And Liberty”: The Evolving Right To Counsel, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

The majority of Americans, if they have contact with the criminal justice system at all, will experience it through misdemeanor courtrooms. More than ever before, the criminal justice system is used to sort, justify, and reify a separate underclass. And as the system of misdemeanor adjudication continues to be flooded with new cases, the value that is exalted over all others is efficiency. The result is a system that can make it virtually painless to plead guilty (which has always been true for low-level offenses), but that is now overlaid with a new system of increasingly harsh collateral consequences. The …

Sections 9, 10 And 11 Of The Canadian Charter, Steve Coughlan, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Section 9 of the Charter guarantees freedom from arbitrary detention, section 10 provides certain rights on arrest, and section 11 guarantees various rights to those charged with an offence. In this chapter the authors consider the aspects of these rights which have been authoritatively determined, as well as pointing to the areas which remain unsettled and discussing the areas of lingering controversy.

Effective Remedies For Ineffective Assistance, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In two recent cases, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Supreme Court affirmed that criminal defendants have a right to competent counsel during plea bargaining. The Court also established that the injury caused by ineffective assistance is not mooted by the subsequent conviction of the defendant at trial. The cases were broadly celebrated for clarifying that the Sixth Amendment applies fully to plea bargaining — the standard process by which our justice system resolves criminal cases today.

The most significant and surprising part of Lafler, however, was the Court’s holding concerning remedies. The Court held that trial courts …

A Rejoinder To Professor Schauer's Commentary, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is quite a treat to have Professor Frederick Schauer comment on my Miranda article.1 Professor Schauer is a renowned authority on freedom of speech and the author of many thoughtful, probing articles in other areas as well, especially jurisprudence. I am pleased that in large measure, Schauer, too, laments the erosion of Miranda in the last four-and-a-half decades2 and that he, too, was unhappy with the pre-Miranda due process/“totality of circumstances”/“voluntariness” test.3 I also like what Schauer had to say about “prophylactic rules,” a term that has sometimes been used to disparage the Miranda rules.4 As Schauer observes, the …

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Umali, Andrew J. Vansingel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Goes Around Comes Around-Nichols V. United States: Validating The Collateral Use Of Uncounseled Misdemeanor Convictions For The Purpose Of Sentence Enhancement, Andrea E. Joseph

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Davis V. United States: "Maybe I Should Talk To A Lawyer" Means Maybe Miranda Is Unraveling, Tom Chen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separate But Equal: Miranda's Rights To Silence And Counsel, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

Three decades ago, the Supreme Court created a dubious distinction between the rights accorded to suspects in custody who invoke their right to silence and who invoke their right to counsel. This distinction significantly disadvantages those who do not have the good sense or good fortune to specify they want an attorney when they invoke their right to remain silent. This article argues that this distinction was flawed at its genesis and that it has led to judicial decisions that are inconsistent, make little sense, and permit police behavior that substantially diminishes the right to silence as described in Miranda …

When The Cheering (For Gideon ) Stops: The Defense Bar And Representation At Initial Bail Hearings, Douglas L. Colbert

Faculty Scholarship

This article suggests that the absence of representation at the beginning of a State criminal prosecution must come to a screeching halt. The criminal defense bar should take a leadership role and dedicate Gideon's anniversary to making certain that an accused's right to the effective assistance of counsel begins at the initial bail hearing. Indeed, guaranteeing vigorous representation should be the defense bar's number one priority.

Alabama V. Shelton: One Small Step For Man, One Very Small Step For The Sixth Amendment's Right To Counsel, Joshua S. Stambaugh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Raising The Bar: How Rompilla V. Beard Represents The Court's Increasing Efforts To Impose Stricter Standards For Defense Lawyering In Capital Cases, Whitney Cawley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reliability, That Should Be The Question: The Constitutionality Of Using Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions In Subsequent Federal Trials After Ant, Cavanaugh, And Shavanaux, Samuel D. Newton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Defense Counsel In Ensuring A Fair Justice System, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

Supreme Court decisions are replete with statements about how crucial it is to have a defense attorney represent the person who is accused of crime. Defense counsel may accurately be considered law enforcers. While representing a lone individual against all the power of the state, counsel must “police the police” to determine if there has been an unconstitutional search, a coerced confession, an unlawfully suggestive lineup, or the fabrication of testimony. Defense counsel must attempt to ensure that the prosecutor is adhering to the professional requirement not merely to convict, but to do justice and comply with his obligations to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Appellants, Paul Dewolfe, Jr., Et Al. V. Quinton Richmond, Et Al., 2011 No. 34, A.J. Bellido De Luna, Michael Pinard

Court Briefs

In this case the appellants sought to overturn a decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that held criminal defendants have a right to representation by an attorney at an initial bail hearing. Due to their concern about the quality of justice given to criminal defendants in the state’s criminal justice process, law professors at both the University of Baltimore and the University of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the Maryland Court of Appeals in support of the appellees.

The amici presented one issue: Did a Court of Appeals decision in 2001 holding that the Maryland Public Defender …

Prosecution Without Representation, Douglas L. Colbert

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright established indigent defendants' constitutional right to counsel, poor people throughout the country still remain without a lawyer when first appearing before a judicial officer who determines pretrial liberty or bail. Absent counsel, low-income defendants unable to afford bail remain in jail for periods ranging from 3-70 days until assigned counsel appears in-court. Examining Walter Rothgery's wrongful prosecution, the article includes a national survey that informs readers about the limited right to counsel at the initial appearance and the extent of delay in each of the 50 states. …

Gideon'S Vuvuzela: Reconciling The Sixth Amendments Promises With The Doctrines Of Forfeiture And Implicit Waiver Of Counsel, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

Dating back to the early decades of the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has articulated clear, venerable standards for the waiver of constitutional rights--and in particular the right to counsel. This is a rich area for both litigation and teaching, if only to be able to repeat phrases such as "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" and "we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." A defendant must proceed with "eyes open," and a waiver will not be presumed from a "silent record." Consistently affirmed and reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court and …

Localism And Capital Punishment, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

Professor Adam Gershowitz presents an interesting proposal to transfer from localities to states the power to enforce the death penalty. In his view, state-level enforcement would result in a more rationally applied death penalty because states would be much more likely to make capital charging decisions based on desert, without the distorting influence of the severe resource constraints applicable to all but the wealthiest of localities. As well conceived as Professor Gershowitz’s proposal is, however, I remain skeptical that statewide enforcement of the death penalty would be preferable to continued local enforcement. First, Professor Gershowitz underestimates the benefits of localism …

“Custody” In Custody: Redefining Miranda Rights In Prison , Maya Dominguez

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Gideon'S Ghost: Providing The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel In Times Of Budgetary Crisis, Heather P. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses how the budget crisis, caused by the recent economic downturn, has created a constitutional crisis with regard to the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. The landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright required states, under the Sixth Amendment, to provide free counsel to indigent criminal defendants. However, as a result of the current financial crisis, many of those who represent the indigent have found their funding cut dramatically. Consequently, Gideon survives, if at all, only as a ghostly shadow prowling the halls of criminal justice throughout the country.

This Article analyzes specific budget cuts from various states and …

The Police-Prosecutor Relationship And The No-Contact Rule: Conflicting Incentives After Montejo V. Louisiana And Maryland V. Shatzer, Caleb Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In this paper, I examine the consequences of the divergence of ethical and constitutional rules, with particular attention to the institutional dynamics of criminal investigation and specifically the relationship between police and prosecutors. This relationship is of crucial importance because Montejo and Shatzer create a legal regime in which non-lawyer agents and officers may initiate investigative contact with represented defendants in circumstances in which prosecutors are absolutely forbidden to do so. This situation undermines the ability of prosecutors to effectively supervise the investigation of their cases and puts them in an untenable position when advising agents on the law.