Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (197)
- Universitas Indonesia (121)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (77)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (70)
- UIC School of Law (52)
-
- BLR (34)
- University of Michigan Law School (27)
- University of Colorado Law School (20)
- Boston University School of Law (10)
- New York Law School (9)
- Georgia State University College of Law (8)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (8)
- Barry University School of Law (6)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (6)
- Pepperdine University (6)
- University of Georgia School of Law (6)
- Brooklyn Law School (5)
- Fordham Law School (5)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (5)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (5)
- University of Maine School of Law (5)
- University of Miami Law School (5)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (5)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
- Duquesne University (4)
- Georgetown University Law Center (4)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (4)
- Notre Dame Law School (4)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Keyword
-
- Jurisprudence (99)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (69)
- Constitution (44)
- Criminal procedure (35)
- Defendant (34)
-
- Federal (34)
- Supreme Court (34)
- Criminal law (33)
- State (33)
- Evidence (31)
- New York (28)
- Constitutional Law (27)
- Judges (27)
- Police (27)
- 1990) (22)
- Court of Appeals (21)
- N.Y. Cont. Art. I (21)
- § 6 (21)
- Jury (20)
- Law and Society (20)
- Courts (19)
- Fifth Amendment (19)
- Law (19)
- United States Supreme Court (19)
- Criminal Law (18)
- Fourth Amendment (17)
- Criminal justice (16)
- International Law (16)
- Law enforcement (16)
- Due process (15)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (196)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- Touro Law Review (59)
- UIC Law Review (50)
- Cardozo Law Review (37)
-
- ExpressO (33)
- Articles (27)
- Faculty Scholarship (23)
- Publications (20)
- Michigan Law Review (17)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (10)
- Articles & Chapters (9)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (8)
- Pepperdine Law Review (6)
- Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution (5)
- Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (5)
- Georgia State University Law Review (5)
- Indiana Law Journal (5)
- Maine Law Review (5)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (4)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (4)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (4)
- Northwestern University Law Review (4)
- Scholarly Works (4)
- University of Richmond Law Review (4)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (4)
- Arkansas Law Review (3)
- Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press (3)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (3)
- Duquesne Law Review (3)
- Publication Type
Articles 661 - 690 of 801
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Reviving Tocqueville's America: The Rehnquist Court's Jurisprudence Of Social Discovery, John O. Mcginnis
Reviving Tocqueville's America: The Rehnquist Court's Jurisprudence Of Social Discovery, John O. Mcginnis
Articles
This Article offers a retrospective on the Rehnquist Court. It argues that the Rehnquist Court has been pursuing a coherent jurisprudence that invigorates decentralization and the private ordering of social norms that Alexis De Tocqueville celebrated in Democracy in America as being the essence of the social order generated by our original Constitution. In four disparate areas-federalism, freedom of association, the religion clauses, and the balance of power between juries and judges-the Court is helping sustain a civil order that bubbles up from state governments or from citizens voluntarily gathered together or randomly selected. The Article is the first to …
Causality And Responsibility, Glenn Shafer
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, 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 …
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 …
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Doctrine Of Non-Inquiry And The Preservation Of Human Rights:-Is There Room For Reconciliation?, Michael S. Topiel
The Doctrine Of Non-Inquiry And The Preservation Of Human Rights:-Is There Room For Reconciliation?, Michael S. Topiel
Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
The note explores the tension between individual human rights under international law and state interests in combating cross-border crime, focusing on the doctrine of noninquiry in extradition cases. It argues that while the Convention Against Torture imposes obligations to prevent extradition to situations of torture, the doctrine of noninquiry—where courts avoid scrutinizing the requesting state’s justice system—remains crucial for maintaining separation of powers and diplomatic relations. The analysis highlights the balancing act between protecting human rights and ensuring international cooperation in law enforcement.
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White
Publications
No abstract provided.
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …
Carl Schmitt: The Defective Guidance For The Critique Of Political Liberalism, Emanuel Richter
Carl Schmitt: The Defective Guidance For The Critique Of Political Liberalism, Emanuel Richter
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rethinking The Penalty Phase, Kyron Huigens
Rethinking The Penalty Phase, Kyron Huigens
Articles
This article argues that the chaos of the US Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence can be sorted with the use of a single point of clarification. That jurisprudence uses the term “culpability” – and similar terms, such as desert, responsibility, and blameworthiness – without regard to a critical ambiguity. We use “culpability” to refer to fault in wrongdoing, as reflected in “culpability elements” such as purpose or recklessness. We also use culpability to refer to eligibility for punishment, which is at issue in the defenses of insanity or minority. Death sentencing is structured around aggravating and mitigating factors, but aggravation …
Afterword And Response: What Digging Does And Does Not Do, Patricia D. White
Afterword And Response: What Digging Does And Does Not Do, Patricia D. White
Articles
No abstract provided.
Is The Excessive Fines Clause Excessively Kind To Money Launderers, Drug Dealers, And Tax Evaders, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 243 (1999), Ann Jennings Maron
Is The Excessive Fines Clause Excessively Kind To Money Launderers, Drug Dealers, And Tax Evaders, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 243 (1999), Ann Jennings Maron
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
When To Hear The Hearsay: A Proposal For A New Rule Of Evidence Designed To Protect The Constitutional Right Of The Criminally Accused To Confront The Witnesses Against Her, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1287 (1999), Scott A. Smith
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Gateway For Successive Habeas Petitions: An Argument For Schlup V. Delo'S Probability Standard For Actual Innocence Claims, Mark M. Oh
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
After Legal Indeterminacy: Carl Schmitt And The National Socialist Legal Order, 1933-1936, William E. Scheuerman
After Legal Indeterminacy: Carl Schmitt And The National Socialist Legal Order, 1933-1936, William E. Scheuerman
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
The American "Adversary System"?, William T. Pizzi
The Judge's Dilemma: Duty Or Conscience?, Robert W. Sweet
The Judge's Dilemma: Duty Or Conscience?, Robert W. Sweet
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Lynching Ethics: Toward A Theory Of Racialized Defenses, Anthony V. Alfieri
Lynching Ethics: Toward A Theory Of Racialized Defenses, Anthony V. Alfieri
Michigan Law Review
So much depends upon a rope in Mobile, Alabama. To hang Michael Donald, Henry Hays and James "Tiger" Knowles tied up "a piece of nylon rope about twenty feet long, yellow nylon." They borrowed the rope from Frank Cox, Hays's brother-in-law. Cox "went out in the back" of his mother's "boatshed, or something like that, maybe it was in the lodge." He "got a rope," climbed into the front seat of Hays's Buick Wildcat, and handed it to Knowles sitting in the back seat. So much depends upon a noose. Knowles "made a hangman's noose out of the rope," thirteen …
Race-Based Jury Nullification: Rebuttal (Part A), 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 923 (1997), Andrew D. Leipold
Race-Based Jury Nullification: Rebuttal (Part A), 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 923 (1997), Andrew D. Leipold
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Habeas Corpus And The New Federalism After The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 337 (1997), Marshall J. Hartman, Jeanette Nyden
Habeas Corpus And The New Federalism After The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 337 (1997), Marshall J. Hartman, Jeanette Nyden
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Feeling Violated: Seventh Circuit Puts The Squeeze On Fourth Amendment Rights Of Bus Travelers, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 245 (1997), Andrew J. Purcell
Feeling Violated: Seventh Circuit Puts The Squeeze On Fourth Amendment Rights Of Bus Travelers, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 245 (1997), Andrew J. Purcell
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Prison Jurisprudence Of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Melvin Gutterman
The Prison Jurisprudence Of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Melvin Gutterman
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reflections On A Quarter-Century Of Constitutional Regulation Of Capital Punishment, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 399 (1997), Joseph Bessetre, Stephen Bright, George Kendall, William Kunkle, Carol Steiker, Jordan Steiker
Reflections On A Quarter-Century Of Constitutional Regulation Of Capital Punishment, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 399 (1997), Joseph Bessetre, Stephen Bright, George Kendall, William Kunkle, Carol Steiker, Jordan Steiker
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.