This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
See Feldman (1999, ch. 4).
On the right to a jury, see Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 US 506, 512 (1974); Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 US 538, 543 (1989); Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66 (1970). On the right to counsel, see Scott v. Illinois, 440 US 367 (1979).
On bifurcated trials, see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976). On jury selection, see Morgan v. Illinois, 504 US 719 (1992). On aggravating and mitigating evidence, see Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586 (1978). On the right to appeal, see Carter and Kreitzberg (2004), p. 54.
Ashworth and Zedner (2007), subheading ‘Substantive Changes. Greater use of diversion’.
See sources cited in note 4.
For a description of the procedures used, see Seigel (2007).
Griffin (2007).
See, e.g., Epstein (2006) (citing concern about rights of Bristol-Myers-Squib and KPMG as basis for eliminating DPA procedures). So far as I have been able to ascertain, law and economics scholar Richard Epstein has never before written about the rights of criminal defendants.
See McLucas et al. (2006), at 622.
Ashworth and Zedner (2007), subheading ‘Greater use of summary trials’.
See Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970) (holding that conviction by jury of six people did not violate the Sixth Amendment); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404 (1972) (holding that non-unanimous jury verdict did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s trial-by-jury guarantee); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 US 356 (1972) (holding that non-unanimous jury verdict did not violate the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirement of the Due Process Clause); Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 US 617 (1989) (holding that Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel of one’s choice was not violated by pre-trial seizure of defendant’s assets which effectively rendered defendant indigent); United States v. Dixon, 508 US 688 (1993) (narrowing circumstances in which Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy bars prosecution for ‘same conduct’).
See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 US 210 (1984) (narrowly construing what constitutes a ‘seizure’ for purposes of Fourth Amendment, in cases involving alleged immigration violations); Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 US 318 (2001) (broadly reading police power to make custodial arrests under Fourth Amendment, in case involving violation of seatbelt law); Washington v. Chrisman, 455 US 1 (1982) (enlarging circumstances in which police may make warrantless entry, in case involving underage possession of alcohol); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 US 420 (1984) (limiting scope of circumstances in which Miranda right-to-silence/right-to-counsel warning must be given, in case involving erratic driving); Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 US 227 (1986) (narrowly construing what constitutes a ‘search’ for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, in case involving possible violations of Clean Air Act regulations); United States v. Ward, 448 US 241 (1980) (narrowly reading Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, in case involving potential $500 penalty for violation of Federal Water Pollution Control Act).
‘Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien’: attributed to Voltaire.
References
Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2007). Defending the criminal law: Reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure, and sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy, doi: 10.1007/s11572-007-9033-2.
Carter, L. E., & Kreitzberg, L. (2004). Understanding capital punishment law. Newark: LexisNexis.
Epstein, R. A. (2006). The deferred prosecution argument. Wall Street Journal (Nov. 28, 2006), p. A14.
Feldman, D. J. (1999). England and Wales. In C. B. Bradley (Ed.). Criminal procedure: A worldwide study Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, pp.91–142.
Fields, L. L. (1994). Pretrial diversion: A solution to California’s drunk-driving problem. Federal Probation, 58, 20–30.
Griffin, L. K. (2007). Compelled cooperation and the new corporate criminal procedure. NYU Law Review, 82, 311–382.
Hinshaw, S. A. II. (1993). Comment, juvenile diversion: An alternative to juvenile court. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1993, 305–313.
Jensen, E. L., & Mosher, C. (2006). Adult drug courts: Emergence, growth, outcome evaluations, and the need for a continuum of care. Idaho Law Review, 42, 443–470.
McLucas, W. R. et al. (2006). The decline of the attorney-client privilege in the corporate setting. Journal Criminal Law & Criminology, 96, 621–642.
Seigel, M. L. (2007). Corporate America fights back: The battle over waiver of the attorney-client privilege. available at: http://works.bepress.com/michael_seigel/1.
Tsai, B. (2000). Note, the trend toward specialized domestic violence courts: Improvements on an effective innovation. Fordham Law Review, 68, 1285–1327.
Wolff, N., & Pogorzelski, W. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 11, 539–569.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An earlier version of these comments was presented at the Workshop on ‘Why Criminal Law?’ held at the British Academy in London.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Green, S.P. Rationing Criminal Procedure: A Comment on Ashworth and Zedner. Criminal Law, Philosophy 2, 53–58 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-007-9035-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-007-9035-0