Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (198)
- Constitutional Law (116)
- Evidence (80)
- Courts (75)
- Fourth Amendment (68)
-
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (62)
- Criminal Law (25)
- Jurisprudence (19)
- Fourteenth Amendment (18)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (16)
- Judges (16)
- Legal History (13)
- Law and Race (11)
- State and Local Government Law (11)
- Legislation (8)
- Law and Society (5)
- Legal Profession (5)
- Litigation (5)
- Privacy Law (5)
- Juvenile Law (4)
- Legal Writing and Research (4)
- Science and Technology Law (4)
- Common Law (3)
- Legal Biography (3)
- Legal Education (3)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Human Rights Law (2)
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (93)
- Michigan Law Review (42)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (20)
- Publications (14)
- Supreme Court Preview (12)
-
- Book Chapters (11)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (10)
- Touro Law Review (7)
- Michigan Law Review Online (4)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Faculty Publications (2)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (2)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (2)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (2)
- Reviews (2)
- Faculty Articles (1)
- Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog) (1)
- Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Other Publications (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- West Virginia Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 181 - 210 of 236
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
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 …
The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens
The Fourth Amendment And The Control Of Police Discretion, William J. Mertens
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The fourth amendment protects the security of people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in two distinct (if overlapping) ways. First, it requires a sufficiently weighty public interest before the government's agents are allowed to search or seize. Thus, for example, probable cause is required for arrest. Whatever uncertainty there may be in the phrase "probable cause" (and, for that matter, however indefinite the idea of "arrest" may have become), in this context, at least, the probable cause standard requires the demonstration of objective facts that point with some probability to the guilt for some particular offense of the person arrested. …
Introduction: Trends And Developments With Respect To That Amendment 'Central To Enjoyment Of Other Guarantees Of The Bill Of Rights', Yale Kamisar
Articles
Seventy years ago, in the famous Weeks case,' the Supreme Court evoked a storm of controversy by promulgating the federal exclusionary rule. When, a half-century later, in the landmark Mapp case,2 the Court extended the Weeks rule to state criminal proceedings, at least one experienced observer assumed that the controversy "today finds its end." 3 But as we all know now, Mapp only intensified the controversy. Indeed, in recent years spirited debates over proposals to modify the exclusionary rule or to scrap it entirely have filled the air - and the law reviews.'
On Complaining About The Burger Court, Robert F. Nagel
On Complaining About The Burger Court, Robert F. Nagel
Publications
No abstract provided.
Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar
Gates, 'Probable Cause', 'Good Faith', And Beyond, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Illinois v. Gates1 was the most eagerly awaited constitutional-criminal procedure case of the 1982 Term. I think it fair to say, however, that it was awaited a good deal more eagerly by law enforcement officials and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement than by defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. As it turned out, of course, the Gates Court, to the disappointment of many, did not reach the question whether the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases should be modified so as not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment when …
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 Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy
The Fourth Amendment As A Device For Protecting The Innocent, Arnold H. Loewy
Michigan Law Review
Part I of this Article establishes that the government has a right to search for and seize evidence of crime. Part II develops the corollary proposition that the fourth amendment does not protect the right to secrete evidence of crime. Part III explores the impact of the reasonable expectation of privacy concept on the innocent. Part IV evaluates consent searches and their effect on the innocent. Finally, Part V considers the exclusionary rule as a device for protecting the innocent.
Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White
Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White
Michigan Law Review
Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …
The Right To Bail In United States Extradition Proceedings, Carl A. Valenstein
The Right To Bail In United States Extradition Proceedings, Carl A. Valenstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
This note examines the judicial rationale for denying bail in extradition proceedings except in special circumstances. The author maintains that the courts apply the special circumstances rule inconsistently. Moreover, a better balance should be struck between the interests of the accused and the interests of the United States Government. This can be accomplished by granting the accused in an extradition proceeding the same right to bail before a final order granting extradition as exists under the federal bail statute.
The Warren Court (Was It Really So Defense-Minded?), The Burger Court (Is It Really So Prosecution-Oriented?), And Police Investigatory Practices, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
In one sense the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure may be said to. have been launched by the 1956 case of Griffin v. Illinois (establishing an indigent criminal defendant's right to a free transcript on appeal, at least under certain circumstances) and to have been significantly advanced by two 1963 cases: Gideon v. Wainwright (entitling an indigent defendant to free counsel, at least in serious criminal cases) and Douglas v. California (requiring a state to provide an indigent with counsel on his first appeal from a criminal conviction). But these were not the cases that plunged the Warren …
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
Richard Nixon's criticism of the Warren Court during the 1968 presidential campaign centered largely on the Court's handling of cases involving criminal rights. According to candidate Nixon, the Court had gone much too far. It had twisted the Constitution to serve its own purposes, created a maze of legal technicalities that worked only to frustrate legitimate law enforcement efforts, and so weakened "the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country" as to be largely responsible for the sharp rise in crime that had occurred in the sixties. What had to be done, continued Nixon, was to appoint …
Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar
Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar
Articles
[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …
Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review
Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note reformulates the doctrine of prosecutorial vindictiveness in light of the distinction drawn in Goodwin between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions. Part I recounts the development of the vindictiveness concept, and argues that in extending the doctrine beyond the factual settings which moved the Supreme Court to fashion its original prophylactic rule, the circuit courts have seriously eroded an essential due process safeguard. Part II critically examines the distinction between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions relied upon in Goodwin. Developing the logical corollary of the Goodwin holding, this Part argues that just as the pretrial situation does not …
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Criminal Procedure, The Burger Court, And The Legacy Of The Warren Court, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
During the 1960s, the Warren Court's decisions in the field of criminal procedure were strongly denounced by many prosecutors, police officers, and conservative politicians. Some of these critics were careful in their description of the Warren Court's record. Others let their strong opposition to several of the Court's more highly publicized decisions destroy their perception of the Court's work as a whole.
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.
Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Twenty years ago, concurring in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Justice William 0. Douglas looked back on Wolf v. Colorado (1949) (which had held that the Fourth Amendment's substantive protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" was binding on the states through the due process clause, but that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule was not) and recalled that the Wolf case had evoked "a storm of controversy which only today finds its end." But, of course, in the twenty years since Justice Douglas made that observation the storm of controversy has only intensified, and it has engulfed the exclusionary rule in federal …
On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel
On Recognizing Variations In State Criminal Procedure, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
Everyone recognizes that the laws governing criminal procedure vary somewhat from state to state. There is often a tendency, however, to underestimate the degree of diversity that exists. Even some of the most experienced practitioners believe that aside from variations on some minor matters, such as the number of peremptory challenges granted, and variation on a few major items, such as the use of the grand jury, the basic legal standards governing most procedures are approximately the same in a large majority of states. I have seen varied evidence of this misconception in practitioner discussions of law reform proposals, particularly …
Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag
Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag
Publications
No abstract provided.
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 …
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 …
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
Disposition Of A Federal Criminal Case When Defendant Dies Pending Appeal, Lori R. Dickerman
Disposition Of A Federal Criminal Case When Defendant Dies Pending Appeal, Lori R. Dickerman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This article discusses the way in which courts historically have disposed of such cases and the apparent change recently introduced by the United States Supreme Court. After an examination of the ramifications of the new and old rules, certain changes in current practice are recommended which will better serve the interests of the deceased, his survivors, and society as a whole.
Fourth Amendment Standing And Expectations Of Privacy: Rakas V. Illinois And New Directions For Some Old Concepts, Richard A. Williamson
Fourth Amendment Standing And Expectations Of Privacy: Rakas V. Illinois And New Directions For Some Old Concepts, Richard A. Williamson
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
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 …
The Exclusionary Rule In Historical Perspective: The Struggle To Make The Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing', Yale Kamisar
The Exclusionary Rule In Historical Perspective: The Struggle To Make The Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing', Yale Kamisar
Articles
In the 65 years since the Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule, few critics have attacked it with as much vigor and on as many fronts as did Judge Malcolm Wilkey in his recent Judicature article, "The exclusionary rule: why suppress valid evidence?" (November 1978).
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
A Defense Of The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
The exclusionary rule is being flayed with increasing vigor by a number of unrelated sources and with a variety of arguments. Some critics find it unworkable and resort to empirically based arguments. Others see it as the product of a belated and unwarranted judicial interpretation. Still others, uncertain whether the rule works, are confident that in some fashion law enforcement's hands are tied. Professor Yale Kamisar, long a defender of the exclusionary rule, reviews the current attacks on the rule and offers a vigorous rebuttal. He finds it difficult to accept that there is a line for acceptable police conduct …
Exclusionary Rule: Reasonable Remarks On Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Yale Kamisar
Exclusionary Rule: Reasonable Remarks On Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Can we live with the so-called exclusionary rule, which bars the use of illegally gained evidence in criminal trials? Can the Fourth Amendment live without it? A growing number of lawyers and judges, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, have called for abandonment of the rule, usually on the ground that it has not prevented illegal searches and seizures and on the ground that the rule has contributed significantly to the increase in crime. No one has convincingly demonstrated a causal link between the high rate of crime in America and the exclusionary rule, and I do not believe that any …
Prosecutorial Discretion, Plea Bargaining And The Supreme Court's Opinion In Bordenkircher V. Hayes, William T. Pizzi
Prosecutorial Discretion, Plea Bargaining And The Supreme Court's Opinion In Bordenkircher V. Hayes, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.
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 …