Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (185)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (143)
- University of Michigan Law School (22)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (17)
- UIC School of Law (5)
-
- University of Washington School of Law (5)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (5)
- Cleveland State University (4)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (3)
- University of Colorado Law School (3)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (3)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (3)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- Georgia State University College of Law (2)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (2)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Chapman University (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Mercer University School of Law (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- Seton Hall University (1)
- Stephen F. Austin State University (1)
- University at Albany, State University of New York (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of Dar es Salaam (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Mississippi (1)
- Keyword
-
- Capital punishment sentencing (102)
- Capital punishment (27)
- Due process (19)
- Fourteenth Amendment (16)
- Police (14)
-
- Constitution (12)
- Fifth Amendment (12)
- Law (12)
- Miranda v. Arizona (12)
- Supreme Court (11)
- Dickerson v. United States (9)
- Due Process Clause (8)
- Incarceration (8)
- Capital punishment of offenders with mental disabilities (7)
- Equal protection (7)
- Evidence (7)
- Fourth Amendment (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- Discrimination (6)
- ESG (6)
- Eighth Amendment (6)
- Exclusionary rule (6)
- First Amendment (6)
- Law enforcement (6)
- Privacy (6)
- Race (6)
- Racism (6)
- United States Supreme Court (6)
- Capital punishment sentencing (5)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (185)
- Capital Defense Journal (137)
- Michigan Law Review (14)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (11)
- Touro Law Review (6)
-
- UIC Law Review (5)
- Washington Law Review (5)
- Cleveland State Law Review (4)
- Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice (4)
- Cardozo Law Review (3)
- Faculty Works (3)
- Publications (3)
- Articles (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Georgia State University Law Review (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (2)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (2)
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (2)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - ) (2)
- American Indian Law Review (1)
- Appellate Briefs (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Buffalo Law Review (1)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (1)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (1)
- Electronic Theses and Dissertations (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 271 - 300 of 426
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Schmitt V. Commonwealth 547 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 200[ 1])
Schmitt V. Commonwealth 547 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 200[ 1])
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Inconsistencies In Virginia Capital Jurisprudence, Sarah M. Braugh
Inconsistencies In Virginia Capital Jurisprudence, Sarah M. Braugh
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bums V. Commonwealth 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001)
Bums V. Commonwealth 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Lenz V. Commonwealth 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001) Remington V. Commonwealth 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001)
Lenz V. Commonwealth 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001) Remington V. Commonwealth 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments Against Private Prosecutors, Matthew S. Nichols
No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments Against Private Prosecutors, Matthew S. Nichols
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Establishing A Capital Defense Unit In Virginia: A Proposal To Increase The Quality Of Representation For Indigent Capital Defendants, Jeremy P. White
Establishing A Capital Defense Unit In Virginia: A Proposal To Increase The Quality Of Representation For Indigent Capital Defendants, Jeremy P. White
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
The Long And Winding Road: The Quest For Admission Of Prison, Life Evidence In Virginia Capital Sentencing Proceedings, Latanya R. White
The Long And Winding Road: The Quest For Admission Of Prison, Life Evidence In Virginia Capital Sentencing Proceedings, Latanya R. White
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Parole Eligibility In Goins V. Angelone, 226 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2000) And Bacon V. Lee, 225 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein
Michigan Law Review
The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell
Michigan Law Review
Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer
Michigan Law Review
Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Michigan Law Review
Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …
Evans V. Smith 220 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2000)
Evans V. Smith 220 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bailey V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000)
Bailey V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Baker V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2000)
Baker V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Barnabei V. Angelone 214 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2000)
Barnabei V. Angelone 214 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
United States V. Barnette 211 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2000)
United States V. Barnette 211 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Ramdass V. Angelone 187 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1999)
Ramdass V. Angelone 187 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1999)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Weeks V. Angelone 176 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 1999)
Weeks V. Angelone 176 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 1999)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Keel V. French 162 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 1998)
Keel V. French 162 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 1998)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bramblett V. Commonwealth Nos. 981394, 981395, 1999 Wl 101069 (Va. Feb. 26, 1999)
Bramblett V. Commonwealth Nos. 981394, 981395, 1999 Wl 101069 (Va. Feb. 26, 1999)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Cherrix V. Commonwealth Nos. 981798, 982063, 1999 Wl 101077 (Va. Feb. 26, 1999)
Cherrix V. Commonwealth Nos. 981798, 982063, 1999 Wl 101077 (Va. Feb. 26, 1999)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Swisher V. Commonwealth 506 S.E.2d 763 (Va. 1998)
Swisher V. Commonwealth 506 S.E.2d 763 (Va. 1998)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Calderon V. Coleman 119 S. Ct. 500 (1998)
Calderon V. Coleman 119 S. Ct. 500 (1998)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.