(Almost) Everything You Wanted to Know About Criminal Procedure

A Review of Criminal Procedure by Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israe

Book Review

A book review of Criminal Procedure by Abraham S. Goldstein and Leonard Orland, and Cases and Comments on Criminal Procedure by Fred E. Inbau, James R. Thompson, James B. Haddad, James B. Zagel and Gary L. Starkman, Modern Criminal Procedure, 4ht Ed by Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, and Jerold H. Israel, The Process of Criminal Justice: Investigation by H. Richard Uviller, Criminal Process, 2nd Ed by Lloyd L. Weinre

Wayne R. LaFave: Search and Seizure Commentator at Work and Play

Starting in 1969,1 we have had the honor and pleasure of co-authoring a goodly number of casebooks, texts, treatises, pocket parts, and annual supplements (more than twenty) with Wayne LaFave.2 On each occasion we have been impressed by the quality of his mind and the judiciousness of his temperament, and impressed as well (and sometimes amazed) by his speed and efficiency

Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect Into Custody. By Wayne R. LaFave.

Professor LaFave and his associates have prepared a thorough study of local arrest policies and practices in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kansas during the years 1956 and 1957. The purpose is to identify and describe those aspects of arrest practice which seem to us most significant… (p. xix)

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

Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2019 Update

This survey is intended to serve as a resource to which Washington lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and others can turn as an authoritative starting point for researching Washington search and seizure law. In order to be useful as a research tool, this Survey requires periodic updates to address new cases interpreting the Washington constitution and the U.S. Constitution and to reflect the current state of the law. Many of these cases involve the Washington State Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Washington constitution. Also, as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to examine Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, its decisions and reflections on Washington law are also discussed. Often the rules and approaches in interpreting the Washington constitution differ in certain areas from the analysis used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Where that occurs, this Survey has identified the independent approach adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. This Survey contains updated case comments and statutory references that are current through March 2019, and focuses primarily on search and seizure law in the criminal context; it omits discussion of many procedural issues, including those arising under court rules that implement constitutional protections. In addition, all references to Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, have been updated to the fifth edition, published in 2012