Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (196)
- University of Michigan Law School (103)
- University of Colorado Law School (14)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (12)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (5)
-
- University of Richmond (4)
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (3)
- Roger Williams University (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (2)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- UIC School of Law (2)
- University of Washington School of Law (2)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Association of American Law Schools (1)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Georgia State University College of Law (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- Old Dominion University (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (81)
- Admissibility (42)
- Sixth Amendment (41)
- Testimony (40)
- Police (37)
-
- Confrontation Clause (35)
- Witnesses (35)
- Cross-examination (30)
- Crawford v. Washington (23)
- Exclusionary rule (23)
- Hearsay (23)
- Evidence (22)
- Searches (20)
- Supreme Court (19)
- Seizures (18)
- Testimonial (18)
- Fifth Amendment (17)
- Custodial interrogations (16)
- Miranda v. Arizona (16)
- Law (15)
- Confessions (14)
- Mapp v. Ohio (13)
- Constitution (12)
- Ohio v. Roberts (12)
- Voluntary nature (12)
- Exclusions (10)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (10)
- Reliability (9)
- Self-incrimination (9)
- Due Process Clause (8)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (196)
- Articles (57)
- Michigan Law Review (30)
- Publications (13)
- Touro Law Review (11)
-
- Book Chapters (7)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (5)
- University of Richmond Law Review (4)
- All Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (3)
- Akron Law Review (2)
- Articles & Chapters (2)
- Faculty Publications (2)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (2)
- U.S. Supreme Court Briefs (2)
- UIC Law Review (2)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - ) (2)
- Washington Law Review (2)
- Amicus Briefs & Court Filings (1)
- BYU Law Review (1)
- Barry Law Review (1)
- Brooklyn Journal of International Law (1)
- Brooklyn Law Review (1)
- Buffalo Law Review (1)
- Cardozo Law Review (1)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Cybersecurity Undergraduate Research Showcase (1)
- FIMS Major Projects and Creative Projects (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 331 - 360 of 386
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich
Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar
Articles
It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …
Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar
Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar
Articles
Barrett was as talented and as dedicated a law teacher as any of his distinguished (or soon-to-become-distinguished) contemporaries. But Barrett resisted the movement toward new rights in fields where none had existed before. At least, he was quite uneasy about the trend. To be sure, others in law teaching shared Barrett's concern that the clock was spinning too fast. Indeed, some others were quite vociferous about it.' But because his criticism was cerebral rather than emotional - because he fairly stated and fully explored the arguments urging the courts to increase their tempo in developing constitutional rights - Barrett was …
Loss Of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification And Proof Of Guilt, Samuel R. Gross
Loss Of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification And Proof Of Guilt, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
It is no news that eyewitness identification in criminal cases is a problem; it is an old and famous problem. Judges and lawyers have long known that the identification of strangers is a chancy matter, and nearly a century of psychological research has confirmed this skeptical view. In 1967 the Supreme Court attempted to mitigate the problem by regulating the use of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials; since then it has retreated part way from that effort. Legal scholars have written a small library of books and articles on this problem, the courts' response to it, and various proposed …
Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton
Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
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 Supreme Court And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Has The Burger Court Retreated?, Paul Marcus
The Supreme Court And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Has The Burger Court Retreated?, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
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.'
New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler
New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler
UIC Law Review
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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.
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 …
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 …
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).
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 …
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
The Use Of In Camera Hearings In Ruling On The Informer Privilege, Ronald E. Levine
The Use Of In Camera Hearings In Ruling On The Informer Privilege, Ronald E. Levine
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The thesis of this article is that most of the problems of defining the scope of the privilege in a particular case are due to the paucity of information available to the trial judge who must rule on the issue. Furthermore, many of the formulas presently used are conceptually and functionally inadequate. Both of these problems can be solved by the use of in camera hearings, for such proceedings not only will provide the trial judge with sufficient information to make a fair and rational decision, but will also alleviate the present necessity to rule only on the basis of …
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
On November 20, 1972, the Supreme Court, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The new rules of evidence were not to take effect, however, until ninety days after they had been submitted to Congress. The rules were officially submitted on February 5, 1973, but even before that date they had become the subject of extensive legislative debate. While some attorneys praise the codification of evidence rules as a progressive step, others maintain that certain of these promulgations will have an objectionable impact on the federal judicial system or that the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority …
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The confrontation clause is that language of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, "[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Despite the seemingly absolute language of the confrontation clause, which would suggest that no hearsay evidence may be admitted against an accused in a criminal proceeding, its guarantee has been subject to exception. For example, when either a witness to an event or his testimony is shown to be unavailable, others will be allowed to testify as to the information which the declarant-witness has related …
Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel
Searches Without Warrants, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
My primary area of concentration today is the search made without a warrant. Studies indicate that 95 percent or more of all searches are without warrants. It is quite understandable, then, that most of the search-and-seizure litigation concerns the validity of searches without warrants.
Books Received
University of Richmond Law Review
These are the books received by the Law School in 1970.
Recent Developments In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Jerold H. Israel
Recent Developments In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
This article is designed to provide a survey of recent decisions dealing with several important issues in the area of search and seizure. It is intended primarily as a basic collection of sources. I have, therefore, sought to keep my own commentary at a minimum and the citations to relevant cases at a maximum. Wherever space permits, I have let the courts speak for themselves. In most instances, however, it has been necessary to provide fairly general descriptions of the cases.
'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. …
Criminal Law-Confessions-Admission Of Illegally Obtained Confession In State Criminal Prosecution Is Harmless Error Not Requiring Reversal Of Conviction--People V. Jacobson, Michigan Law Review
Criminal Law-Confessions-Admission Of Illegally Obtained Confession In State Criminal Prosecution Is Harmless Error Not Requiring Reversal Of Conviction--People V. Jacobson, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Defendant voluntarily admitted that he had murdered his daughter to a social worker, two ambulance attendants, and three police officers sent to investigate the incident. He continued to declare his guilt to these officers after his arrest, on the way to the police station, and at the police station where he was interrogated without the benefit of counsel although he had not waived his right to counsel. All of the confessions-approximately ten-were admitted in evidence at the defendant's trial over his objection that the two confessions obtained during the interrogation should have been excluded since he had been denied his …