Commentators had predicted that the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist would, at most, continue the Burger Court's purported "moderation" of the rights-based criminal procedure jurisprudence of the Warren era. In fact, however, the Burger Court's characterization of criminal trials as crucibles yielding truth-in-fact, together with its consequent devaluation of rights and procedures that impede this truth-finding function, has led to a constitutional counterrevolution. Analysis of the Court's evolving treatment of truth-finding, harmless error, habeas corpus, and stare decisis reveals a jurisprudence no longer grounded in the due process orientation of the Warren era or even the truth-finding quest of the Burger Court but rooted instead in the Supreme Court's inherent power to impose swiftness and finality on the criminal conviction process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arenella, P.
(1983). Rethinking the functions of criminal procedure: The Warren and Burger Courts' competing ideologies. Georgetown Law Journal, 69, 185-248.
2.
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed. 2d 302 (1991).
3.
Bedau, H.
, & Radelet, M. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21-179.
4.
Blasi, V.
(Ed.). (1983). The Burger Court: The counter-revolution that wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale.
5.
Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 259, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987).
6.
Bradley, C. M.
(1987). Criminal procedure in the Rehnquist Court: Has the Rehnquisition begun?Indiana Law Journal, 62, 273-294.
7.
Bradley, C. M.
(1993). The failure of the criminal procedure revolution. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
9.
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed. 2d 353 (1993).
10.
Callins v. Collins,_ U.S. _, 114 S.Ct. 1127, 127 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994).
11.
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
12.
Decker, J.
(1992). Revolution to the right: Criminalprocedurejurisprudence during the Burger-Rehnquist era. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
13.
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 431 (1986).
14.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).
15.
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987).
16.
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S. Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed. 2d 203 (1993).
17.
Irons, P.
(1994). Brennan v. Rehnquist: The battle for the Constitution. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
18.
Israel, J.
(1977). Criminal procedure, the Burger Court, and the legacy of the Warren Court. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1320-1425.
19.
Jacobs v. Scott, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 711, 130 L.Ed2d 618 (1995).
20.
Kamisar, Y.
(1983). The Warren Court (Was it really so defense-minded?), The Burger Court (Is it really so prosecution-oriented?), and police investigatory practices. In V. Blasi (Ed.), The Burger Court: The counter-revolution that wasn't (pp. 62-91). New Haven, CT: Yale.
21.
Kamisar, Y.
(1987). The "police practices" phases of the criminal process and the three phases of the Burger Court. In H. Schwartz (Ed.), The Burger years: Rights and wrongs in the Supreme Court, 1969-1986 (pp. 143-168). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
22.
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
23.
Kyles v. Whitley, — U.S. — 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).
24.
LaFave, W.
(1983). Fourth Amendment vagaries (of improbable cause, imperceptible plain view, notorious privacy, and balancing askew). Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 1171-1224.
25.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
26.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
27.
O'Brien, D.
(1994, October 20). Centrists win out on high court. The Commercial Appeal, pp. B5-B6.
28.
O'Neal v. McAninch, 115 S. Ct 992 (1995).
29.
Packer, H. L.
(1968). 7he limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958).
31.
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991).
32.
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987).
33.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).
34.
Pye, A.
(1986). Constitutional adjudication in criminal procedure: Of symbolism and covert overruling. Proceedings of Canadian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, pp. 121-146.
35.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).
36.
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974).
37.
Rudovsky, D.
(1984). Criminal justice: The accused. In N. Dorsen (Ed.), Our endangered rights (pp. 203-237). Boston, MA: Little Brown.
38.
Saltzburg, S. A.
(1980). Foreword: The flow and ebb of constitutional criminal procedure in the Warren and Burger Courts. Georgetown Law Journal, 69, 151-209.
39.
Savage, D.
(1992). Turning right: The making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
40.
Schwartz, H.
(1987). Introduction. In H. Schwartz (Ed.), The Burgeryears: Rights and wrongs in the Supreme Court, 1969-1986 (pp. xi-xxv). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
41.
Simon, J.
(1995). The center holds: The power struggle inside the Rehnquist Court. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
42.
South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989).
43.
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976).
44.
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).
45.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
46.
Whitebread, C. H.
(1985a). The Burger Court's counter-revolution in criminal procedure: The recent criminal decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Washburn Law Journal, 24, 471-498.
47.
Whitebread, C. H.
(1985b). The counter-revolution in criminal procedure. Judges, 24, 41-43.
48.
Whitebread, C. H.
(1987). The counterrevolution enters a new era: Criminal procedure decisions during the final term of the Burger Court. University of Puget Sound Law Review, 10, 571-590.
49.
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 113 S. Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed. 2d 407 (1993).
50.
Zalman, M.
, & Siegel, L. (1991). Criminal procedure: Constitution and society. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
