Supreme Irrelevance: The Court's Abdication in Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence (original) (raw)
Related papers
2016
The injustice by professionals within the criminal justice system gives rise to societal opinion that purports that these respective agencies lack a clear perception of their professional conduct. This invidious neglect toward societal opinion preempts the divide among law enforcement agencies-most specifically-and the United States population. The impaired perception on professional conduct the criminal justice professionals suffer from nationwide owes itself to the misuse of authority and a subsequent lack of accountability for improper actions. Overtime, the dissolving of one's civil liberties has perpetuated in accord to the deference awarded to law enforcement agencies and the courts that allow this privilege; notwithstanding, this corruption continuum only dilutes into the nation's prison population. The exclusionary rule, as adopted by the Supreme Court in 1914, does not alone offer much substance in line with correcting this impaired perception among criminal justice professionals, however, the rules underlying principle in the rule of law could prove paramount. The purpose of this paper is to negate reasons favoring a suppression of the rule, and inspire research as to how this principle, modified into policy, can begin a movement toward closing the "revolving-door" that otherwise fuel the justice system in America, by doing so in jump-starting that system toward functioning systematically, not fraudulently.
2021
On the final day of the 1982 Term, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. Long.' Although primarily a fourth amendment decision, 2 Long's true significance lies in its establishment of a new test for determining when a state decision rests on independent and adequate state grounds, thus precluding federal review. The Court held that when such a decision either appears to rest on or be "interwoven" with federal law, and when the independence or adequacy of a state ground is not clear from the opinion, the Court will presume that the federal grounds were primarily relied upon. 3 This new test undoubtedly will increase the number of prosecution appeals from state court criminal decisions that the Supreme Court will review. Consequently, it is important to ask why this Court, which has continually bemoaned its swollen docket, 4 would voluntarily seek to expand the number of cases available for its review. The most intriguing portion of the Long case was the dissent filed by Justice Stevens.? Repeating a theme he had sounded in previous opin
The Good, the Bad, and the Burger Court: Victims' Rights and a New Model of Criminal Review
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 1984
On the final day of the 1982 Term, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. Long.' Although primarily a fourth amendment decision, 2 Long's true significance lies in its establishment of a new test for determining when a state decision rests on independent and adequate state grounds, thus precluding federal review. The Court held that when such a decision either appears to rest on or be "interwoven" with federal law, and when the independence or adequacy of a state ground is not clear from the opinion, the Court will presume that the federal grounds were primarily relied upon. 3 This new test undoubtedly will increase the number of prosecution appeals from state court criminal decisions that the Supreme Court will review. Consequently, it is important to ask why this Court, which has continually bemoaned its swollen docket, 4 would voluntarily seek to expand the number of cases available for its review. The most intriguing portion of the Long case was the dissent filed by Justice Stevens.? Repeating a theme he had sounded in previous opin
Criminal Justice and the 2013-2014 United States Supreme Court Term
Hamline Law Review, 2006
I. INTRODUCTION 951II. EMPIRICAL MEASURES OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONMAKING 955III. case DECISIONS 966A. Unanimous Decisions 966B. Eight-to-One Decisions 975C. Seven-to- Two and Six-to- Two Decisions 977D. Six-to-Three andFive-to-Three Decisions 986E. Five-to-Four Decisions 998IV. CONCLUSION 1008I. INTRODUCTIONThe U.S. Supreme Court's 2004-2005 Term marked the end of a period of remarkable stability for the nation's highest court. The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor1 and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist2 concluded an eleven-term span in which a single set of nine justices heard and decided cases together.3 Throughout this period, the Rehnquist Court gained a reputation for two trends in criminal justice cases. First, the Court generally favored conservative4 outcomes by siding with the government more frequently than with individuals.5 second, in cases in which the Court was deeply divided, the outcome often hinged on whether the Court's four most...
2007
This article was written with the support of the Robert M. Cover Clinical Teaching Fellowship at Yale Law School. Ms. Shay was counsel for amicus curiae Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of the Yale Law School (LSO) in both Woodford v. Ngo and Jones v. Bock. She also was a member of the legal team representing amicus curiae the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Ms. Shay is a member of the Stop Abuse and Violence Everywhere (SAVE) coalition, a group of scholars and advocates dedicated to reforming the PLRA.