Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

Liberty And Property In The Supreme Court: A Defense Of Roth And Perry, Peter N. Simon

Publications

No abstract provided.

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.

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

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 …

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 …

Taxpayer Rights In Noncustodial Irs Investigations After Beckwith V. United States, Curtis L. Christensen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The recent Supreme Court decision in Beckwith v. United States, holding that Miranda does not extend to noncustodial tax investigations, has important implications with respect to the News Release doctrine and the involuntary consent grounds considered in motions to suppress evidence. This article will examine Beckwith and its potential significance with respect to these other doctrines, discussing the factors which the IRS and the courts should consider in order to assure fair treatment of taxpayers during investigations.

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

Competency To Stand Trial In Federal Courts: Conceptual And Constitutional Problems, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Kauper's 'Judicial Examination Of The Accused' Forty Years Later—Some Comments On A Remarkable Article, Yale Kamisar

Articles

For a long time before Professor Paul Kauper wrote "Judicial Examination of the Accused" in 1932, and for a long time thereafter, the "legal mind" shut out the de facto inquisitorial system that characterized American criminal procedure. Paul Kauper could not look away. He recognized the "naked, ugly facts" (p. 1224) and was determined to do something about them -more than thirty years before Escobedo v. Illinois' or Miranda v. Arizona.2

The Conclusive Presumption Doctrine: Equal Process Or Due Protection?, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Vlandis v. Kline and United States Department of Agriculture v. Murry, decided during its past term, the Supreme Court invoked the conclusive presumption doctrine to invalidate statutory provisions, that restricted access to certain state and federal government benefits. This term, in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, the Court used the same rationale to strike down school board rules requiring teachers to take maternity leaves without pay. The essence of the doctrine is as follows: When a statutory provision imposes a burden upon a class of individuals for a particular purpose and certain individuals within the burdened class …

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Collateral Estoppel Is Constitutionally Required In Criminal Cases Because It Is Embodied In The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause--Ashe V. Swenson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purposes behind collateral estoppel and double jeopardy and the current effectiveness of the two doctrines in light of these policies and purposes. The policies of the double jeopardy guarantee are well defined in the federal cases. Basically, it is recognized that the state, having at hand many more resources than the average defendant can muster, should not be allowed to make successive attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Successive prosecutions cause the defendant expense and embarrassment and force him to live …

'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. …

Police Interrogation And The Supreme Court--The Latest Round, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

My first task is to explain to some degree the nature of the problem embodied in our title. This book has been designated as "Escobedo-The Second Round." What we will be discussing is a series of cases, decided in June, 1966, the most noteworthy of which is Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)]. In these cases, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a new set of standards governing the introduction in evidence of statements obtained from the defendant through police interrogation. Actually, to a degree these standards were not entirely new. They had been suggested, at least in part, …

A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar

Articles

F the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer3 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.

Conditioning Of Relief From Unenforceable Judgment Upon Showing Of Meritorious Defense To Claim Upon Which It Was Entered Can Deny Due Process Of Law--Armstrong V. Manzo, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

When petitioner and his wife were divorced in 1959 she received custody of their minor daughter, and he was ordered to contribute fifty dollars per month toward the child's support. The wife remarried and, two years after the divorce, joined in proceedings initiated by her new husband in a Texas court to adopt the child. The adoption petition alleged that, during the two-year period, petitioner had failed to support the child in a manner commensurate with his ability. Under Texas law, proof of such a charge against a natural father makes his consent to the adoption of his child unnecessary. …

Has The Court Left The Attorney General Behind? The Bazelon-Katzenbach Letters On Poverty, Equality, And The Administration Of Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Distribution of the first preliminary draft of the proposed American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure last June touched off a brisk exchange of letters between Chief Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who maintained that the proposed code left a good deal to be desired, and Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, who, although he did not explicitly treat any provision of the preliminary draft, sharply challenged the conception of equality underlying Bazelon's criticism of it. By now, both the code, and the Bazelon-Katzenbach correspondence which it evoked, are …

Noise And The Law, George A. Spater

Michigan Law Review

For practical purposes the discussion of the law of noise can be considered in two parts: first, the rights of a complainant against a private person and second, the rights of a complainant against the government or an agency acting by government authority.

Commissioner May Examine Taxpayer's Records For Years Barred By Statute Of Limitations Without Proving Reasonable Suspicion Of Fraud--United States V. Powell, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has power to summon witnesses and to examine records in order to ascertain the correctness of a taxpayer's return. If a summons is not obeyed or if the records sought are not produced, the Commissioner may seek enforcement by applying to the proper federal district court. Although the Commissioner's investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. In the absence of fraud, he must act within the confines of a three-year statute of limitations. In addition, the Code makes it abundantly clear that taxpayers may not be subjected to unnecessary examinations or investigations and that …

The Constitution And Contempt Of Court, Ronald Goldfarb

Michigan Law Review

Few legal devices find conflict within the lines of our Constitution with the ubiquity of the contempt power. These conflicts involve issues concerning the governmental power structure such as the separation of powers and the delicate balancing of federal-state relations. In addition, there are civil rights issues attributable to the conflict between the use of the contempt power and such vital procedural protections as the right to trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and indictment-to name only the most recurrent and controversial examples. Aside from these problems, there are other civil liberties issues, such as those involving freedom …

Meiklejohn: Political Freedom, Paul G. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Political Freedom. By Alexander Meiklejohn

Constitutional Law - Courts - Martial - Power Of Congress To Provide For Military Jurisdiction Over Retired Servicemen, Stephen B. Flood

Michigan Law Review

A retired naval officer was charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice based upon acts of sodomy occurring after his retirement. At arraignment he challenged the jurisdiction of the military tribunal on the ground that Article 2(4) of the U.C.M.J., providing for court-martial jurisdiction over retired servicemen, contravenes the Fifth Amendment. The court-martial and the board of review overruled this objection, and the accused was convicted and sentenced. On appeal, held, while jurisdiction is proper, reversed on other grounds for further proceedings. A retired member of the armed forces who is entitled to pay is a …

Constitutional Law - Right To Travel - Authority Of Secretary Of State To Deny Passports, Arnold Henson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner's application for a passport was denied under §51.135 of the Passport Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State on the grounds that he was a Communist and that he had a record of consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party line. The letter of denial stated that before a passport would be issued, a non-communist affidavit as provided for in the Regulations would be required. Following petitioner's refusal to file the affidavit the State Department informed him that until one was filed his application would receive no further consideration. Petitioner thereupon brought an action for declaratory relief in …

Landowners' Rights In The Air Age: The Airport Dilemma, William B. Harvey

Michigan Law Review

If Lord Tennyson had been a student of the common law, he might well have qualified his poetic foresight of "the heavens fill[ed] with commerce" by some cautious reference to the complaints of landowners below against the "pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." The result doubtless would have been poorer poetry but a far more accurate forecast of the problems to confront mid-20th century lawyers. Although the phenomenal growth of civil aviation since the first World War has opened up a host of difficulties, the only ones of concern in this article are those presenting the …

Constitutional Law - Former Jeopardy - Retrial For Greater Offense After Conviction Of Lesser Included Offense Reversed On Appeal, Ralph E. Boches

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was indicted by the District of Columbia grand jury on counts charging both arson and murder in the first degree for a death caused by the arson. He was convicted of arson and second-degree murder, the jury returning no verdict on the first-degree murder charge. On appeal the conviction of second-degree murder was reversed because the evidence permitted only a conviction of first-degree murder or an acquittal. On remand defendant was retried on the original indictment for first-degree ·murder, convicted, and sentenced to death over his objection of former jeopardy. The court of appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed …

Constitutional Law - Due Process -Watkins V. United States As A Limitation On Power Of Congressional Investigating Committees, Allan F. Bioff S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

It is the purpose of this comment to examine the nature and extent of the restraints imposed by the Watkins case as well as the potential problems raised by the decision.

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

Besides the two specific problems which the new federal act presents, namely, whether it imposes nonjudicial functions on federal courts, and whether it should, does and can protect against the substantial danger of state prosecution, there is a general objection that one can raise against it, and to other acts of the same type: they relate to the area of belief and opinion, the very area which was involved when the English people, spearheaded by the Puritans, engaged in the struggle with the Crown that finally resulted in the establishment of a right of silence. At least if we are …

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

At the last term the United States Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States upheld the constitutionality of paragraph (c) of a federal act of August 1954 which seeks to compel the testimony of communists and other political deviants. Paragraph (c) relates to witnesses before federal courts and grand juries. The Court specifically left open the question of the validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) relating to congressional witnesses. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Black, wrote a dissent.

It is our purpose to consider the background, history and terms of this compulsory …

The Fourteenth Amendment Reconsidered, The Segregation Question, Alfred H. Kelly

Michigan Law Review

Some sixty years ago in Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court of the United States adopted the now celebrated "separate but equal" doctrine as a constitutional guidepost for state segregation statutes. Justice Brown's opinion declared that state statutes imposing racial segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, provided only that the statute in question guaranteed equal facilities for the two races. Brown's argument rested on a historical theory of the intent, although he offered no evidence to support it. "The object of the amendment," he said, "was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, …