Criminal Procedure, the Burger Court, and the Legacy of the Warren Court

During the 1960s, the Warren Court\u27s decisions in the field of criminal procedure were strongly denounced by many prosecutors, police officers, and conservative politicians. Some of these critics were careful in their description of the Warren Court\u27s record. Others let their strong opposition to several of the Court\u27s more highly publicized decisions destroy their perception of the Court\u27s work as a whole

Francis A. Allen--The Gainesville Years

If the legal academy had a Hall of Fame, Frank Allen would surely be a first ballot, unanimous selection.\u27 His nominators need only recite the bare-bones record of his career-his publications, his public service, his years of accomplished teaching, and the many honors he received. That record is neatly capsulized in an obituary, published in the Gainesville Sun, largely written by Frank and June\u27s son, Neil (Neil was also Franks\u27s coauthor on Frank\u27s last publication2). In a concise, precise fashion, reminiscent of Frank\u27s own writings, the obituary not only describes Frank\u27s many accomplishments, but also touches upon his character and significance

On Charting a Course through the Mathematical Quagmire: The Future of Baker v. Carr

The Tennessee reapportionment decision, Baker v. Carr,\u27 has been popularly characterized as one of the very few judicial decisions which have fundamentally reshaped our constitutional system. \u272 Newspaper and magazine commentators generally have predicted that the decision of last March is likely to change the course of our history by producing a drastic alteration in the balance of power on the state political scene.3 While this end may be desirable,4 any such estimate of the future impact of the Baker decision, at least insofar as its legal consequence is concerned,5 seems not only premature but somewhat exaggerated. The future significance of this decision will ultimately depend upon the manner in which the Supreme Court extricates itself from what Mr. Justice Frankfurter has so colorfully described as the mathematical quagmire 6 of determining what constitutes invalid state legislative apportionment. And, as the following discussion hopefully will demonstrate, the path to be charted through that quagmire may be far narrower than most commentators and many lower courts have anticipated

Review of The Supreme Court on Trial, by C. S. Hyneman.

Professor Hyneman\u27s book represents still another entry in the current debate over the proper role of judicial review in a democratic society.\u27 Although he approaches this subject via an analysis of several recent attacks upon the United States Supreme Court, Professor Hyneman essentially deals with the same topics-the legitimacy of judicial review, the proper standards applicable to constitutional adjudication, and the alleged departure of the school segregation cases2 from those standards-that have served as the subject of several books and at least a score of articles published within the past five years.3 Indeed the writing in this area has grown so voluminous that it is difficult for anyone except a full-time student of constitutional law to read it all. Accordingly, any evaluation of a new book in this area must take into account the competition. Judged in this light, The Supreme Court on Trial, while a fairly interesting and possibly useful volume, hardly ranks as essential reading for the lawyer who is interested in the subject of judicial review. Professor Hyneman obviously has produced a better work than several other authors dealing with the same topic, 4 but, in my opinion, his contribution still falls far short of the excellence of the best literature in this field.

Counsel\u27s Control over Defense Strategy

editor\u27s note: The article that follows is a condensation of a section of Criminal Procedure, a hornbook co-authored by Professor Israel and Wayne R. Lafave, and published by West Publishing Co. in 1985. That hornbook, in turn, is a condensation of the authors\u27 three-volume treatise by the same title. Prior to Faretta, a long line of cases had held that defense counsel had the authority to make various defense decisions on his own initiative. These decisions, commonly characterized as relating to matters of strategy or tactics, were said to be within the exclusive province of the lawyer. Counsel had no obligation to consult with the defendant, and if he did consult, had no obligation to follow the defendant\u27s wishes. Other defense decisions, however, were said to rest in the ultimate authority of the defendant. As to those decisions, commonly said to require the personal choice of the defendant, counsel had to advise the client and abide by his directions

Excessive Criminal Justice Caseloads: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom

Since the mid-1960s, no element of the criminal justice environment has received more attention and been accorded greater importance, in both popular and professional commentary, than has the pressure of heavy caseloads. The lack of sufficient resources to deal with overbearing caseloads has been widely characterized as the most pervasive and most critical administrative challenge faced by police, prosecutors, public defenders, and courts.\u27 National commissions have regularly complained that the criminal justice system is overcrowded, overworked, [and] undermanned, and must be given substantially more money to cure those ills if it is ever to perform all of the tasks assigned to it.2 Academicians have maintained that expectations for the process will never be met so long as it is confronted by quantitative demands that exceed the capacities of its resources and procedures and leave it groan[ing] under a stifling and increasing weight of numbers. 3 Administrators have rated excessive caseloads as their number one problem,4 and have warned that the weight of caseloads have placed the system on the verge of collapse. 5 Political leaders have even suggested that excessive caseloads have contributed to an increase in crime.\u2

Search by Consent

My topics this morning are eavesdropping, search by consent and entrance gained by fraud and deceit. You should be forewarned that these are areas in which the law has been on the move for the past few years. Changes have occurred and still more will take place in the future. I will attempt to anticipate some of those developments, but, obviously, the only safe course is keeping up-to-date through continuing education. In covering my assigned topics, I hope to paint with a rather broad brush. It has always been my feeling that the pohce officer cannot be expected to learn all the minor rules, exceptions to the mles and exceptions to exceptions that a defense lawyer or prosecutor must have at his command. I hope to present a general picture of the difficult problems presented in these areas and suggest means that may be used to avoid those problems

Francis A. Allen--The Gainesville Years

If the legal academy had a Hall of Fame, Frank Allen would surely be a first ballot, unanimous selection.\u27 His nominators need only recite the bare-bones record of his career-his publications, his public service, his years of accomplished teaching, and the many honors he received. That record is neatly capsulized in an obituary, published in the Gainesville Sun, largely written by Frank and June\u27s son, Neil (Neil was also Franks\u27s coauthor on Frank\u27s last publication2). In a concise, precise fashion, reminiscent of Frank\u27s own writings, the obituary not only describes Frank\u27s many accomplishments, but also touches upon his character and significance

An Introduction to Riot Legislation

My speech will provide an introduction to criminal code legislation specifically pertaining to riots and a brief description of our recent experience with riots. Hopefully, this description, supplemented by the film on the Detroit riot, will provide an appropriate factual background for both the remainder of my own talk and the analyses of proper police procedures during riots (and other civil disorders) to be presented by Major Brown and Professor Martin