Year: 1957
Type: article
Abstract: THE apparently chaotic array of Supreme Court decisions on the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments presents an imposing challenge to anyone who would formulate a unifying rationale.It is difficult, for example, to imagine what general, systematic principle of law could be deduced from the following conclusions: a criminal conviction based on a confession obtained by physical and mental coercion violates due process regardless of its testimonial reliability," but a conviction based on incriminating evidence obtained by acts concededly violative of the due process clause is not itself violative of due process;2 the privilege against self-incrimination 3 and the right to be free of convictions based upon unconstitutional searches and seizures 4 are not protected by due process of law, but a conviction for illegally possessing narcotics based on the evidential use of narcotics unwillingly pumped out of the accused's stomach does violate due process ;5 the use of illegally obtained evidence to procure a conviction is not violative of due process when the illegality consists of breaking into the accused's office and rifling through his papers, 0 but does violate due process (at least in the eyes of two members of the Court) when the illegality consists of repeated and unauthorized entries for the purpose of installing a microphone and stringing wires to a neighboring garage ;7 due process is violated by the denial of an opportunity for the accused to retain counsel, s but not (necessarily) by the denial of an opportunity to have counsel appointed where a private retainer is financially impossible.
Source: The Yale Law Journal
DOI: 10.2307/793970
Author: Sanford H. Kadish
Institution: University of California, Berkeley
Language: English
Topic: Criminal Law and Evidence
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1520892310