DOCSLIB.ORG

Effective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe Ed Cape and Zaza Namoradze Effective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe Bulgaria l Georgia l Lithuania l Moldova l Ukraine Effective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe Ed Cape Zaza Namoradze Effective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe Eff ective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe Ed Cape Zaza Namoradze Eff ective Criminal Defence in Eastern Europe ISBN 978-963-9719-10-1 © 2012 Soros Foundation–Moldova No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photo copy, microfi lm or any other means, without written permission from the relevant authors. PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Th is book is based on a research project which was conducted under the framework of the Legal Aid Reformers Network (LARN) with fi nancial support from the Human Rights and Governance Grants Program of the Open Society Foundations and implemented by the Soros Foundation–Moldova, in cooperation with Open Society Institute–Sofi a, Open Society Georgia Foundation, International Renaissance Foundation–Ukraine, and the Open Society Justice Initiative. In the past decade the Open Society Justice Initiative, in collaboration with national Soros foundations, has helped to initiate and implement reforms revamping the national legal aid systems in a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. As a result new legal aid laws were adopted in Lithuania in 2005, Bulgaria in 2006, Georgia and Moldova in 2007, and Ukraine in 2011. Th e right of access to legal assistance and legal aid is a crucial safeguard for the requirements of a fair trial, and these new laws have created important foundations for broadening accessibility and improving the quality of free legal aid services for indigent criminal suspects and accused persons. However, as this book demonstrates, some important shortcomings and challenges still remain to be dealt with before eff ective criminal defence rights are fully realised. LARN was created in 2009 as an international information-sharing network of organisations and individuals working to promote rights to legal aid and eff ective defence. LARN implemented the current research project, inspired by the 2010 research project entitled Eff ective Criminal Defence in Europe,1 which marked a major 1 Ed Cape, Zaza Namoradze, Roger Smith and Taru Spronken, Eff ective Criminal Defence in Europe, Antwerp: Intersentia, 2010. V Preface and Acknowledgments development in comparative criminal law in Europe and which has been an important resource supporting reforms across Europe. Like the original research project, the current study places the suspect and accused at the centre of the enquiry and examines the question of access to eff ective criminal defence from their perspective. Its overall aim is to advance the European Union’s legislative agenda on the rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings, to improve defence rights standards and their implementation, and to provide policymakers and practitioners in the research countries with evidence on shortcomings and recommendations for reforms. Th e project management team that provided research guidance and overall project coordination consisted of: Ed Cape of the University of West of England; Nadejda Hriptievschi, a lawyer from Moldova; and Zaza Namoradze, Director of the Budapest offi ce of the Open Society Justice Initiative. All have current or previous experience as practicing lawyers and have wide knowledge and experience of criminal justice systems in a range of jurisdictions. Ed Cape and Zaza Namoradze collaborated, together with others, on the 2010 Eff ective Criminal Defence in Europe project, which was funded by an action grant from the EU Justice, Freedom and Security Directorate and by the Open Society Institute, and which examined defence rights in eight EU member states and one accession country. Ed Cape has also carried out a number of projects concerned with defence rights and the criminal process in the EU and beyond, including an Open Society Justice Initiative publication entitled Improving Pretrial Justice: Th e Roles of Lawyers and Paralegals. Zaza Namoradze has directed a large number of projects concerning legal aid reforms, including national legal aid reform initiatives in the countries covered by the current research. Nadejda Hriptievschi, who provides overall guidance to LARN, has worked on several research projects on criminal justice in Moldova and has been actively involved in legal reform initiatives in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Her enthusiasm, dedication and hard work has been critical in successfully executing the current research project. A project of this nature inevitably relies on a large number of people. Th e project was governed by a Steering Committee consisting of Velislava Delcheva (Open Society Institute–Sofi a), Tamuna Kaldani (Open Society Georgia Foundation), Victor Munteanu (Soros Foundation–Moldova), Roman Romanov (International Renaissance Foundation–Ukraine) and Zaza Namoradze (Open Society Justice Initiative). Th e project management team was given considerable assistance by a number of people, including Marion Isobel and Katalin Omboli (Open Society Justice Initiative), Vasylyna VI Preface and Acknowledgments Yavorska (International Renaissance Foundation–Ukraine) and Marcel Varmari and Tatiana Danilescu (Soros Foundation–Moldova). All of them played essential roles in its successful implementation. Steven Freeland (Professor of International Law at the University of Western Sydney, Australia) brought his considerable knowledge, skills and experience to the task of editing the country reports that are set out as chapters in Part II. Th e in-country researchers, of course, played a crucial role and they were: Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), Besarion Bokhashvili (Georgia), Regina Valutyte and Inga Abramaviciute (Lithuania), Nadejda Hriptievschi (Moldova), and Gennadiy Tokarev and Arkadiy Buschenko (Ukraine). Th e in-country reviewers also played an important role in providing a critique of, and validating, the data provided by the in-country researchers and their names are set out in the respective chapters in Part II. Th e reviewers were: Roumen Nenkov (Bulgaria), Giorgi Chkheidze (Georgia), Raimundas Jurka (Lithuania), Vasile Rotaru (Moldova) and Mykola Khavroniuk (Ukraine). We also thank Tom Bass for editing the fi nal text and extend our gratitude to all of those, both named and unnamed, who have contributed to the research project and the book. We hope that this book, like the original study, will contribute to a deeper knowledge and understanding of the factors that infl uence access to e ff ective criminal defence. Our aim is that it will be a source of inspiration for a constructive and eff ective programme of policies and actions for setting standards and guidelines regionally within the European Union and the Council of Europe, and nationally through mechanisms designed to make access to eff ective criminal defence available to all who need it. Th e research will be presented and the book launched at a conference in Brussels on 7 June 2012, to which many of those with responsibility for standard- setting and implementation of defence rights are invited. We trust that this book will provide them with a valuable source of information and analysis. Th e millions of people who are arrested, detained or prosecuted every year across Europe have the right to be dealt with fairly and justly. Th is right should be made a reality. May 2012 Ed Cape Zaza Namoradze VII CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgments...................................................................... V Contents ...................................................................................................... IX Biographies .................................................................................................. XXI PART I EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL DEFENCE IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT ..................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 Eff ective Criminal Defence and Fair Trial .................................. 3 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 3 2. Th e research project and methodology .............................................. 5 3. Eff ective criminal defence and fair trial ............................................. 9 4. Fair trial rights in an international context ........................................ 12 4.1 Th e global context .................................................................... 12 4.2 Th e European Convention on Human Rights ........................... 14 4.3 Th e European Union and procedural rights in criminal proceedings............................................................................... 17 4.3.1 Th e Lisbon Treaty ........................................................... 18 4.3.2 Th e procedural rights ‘roadmap’ ..................................... 22 5. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 27 6. Bibliography ..................................................................................... 28 IX Contents Chapter 2 Standards for Eff ective Criminal Defence ................................... 33 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 33 2. Analysing eff ective criminal defence standards .................................. 33 3. ‘Criminal proceedings’ and ‘criminal charge’ ..................................... 35 4. Th e right to information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WCC Moldova Partnership Program Report on Activities for 2003-2004
    WCC Moldova Partnership Program Report on activities for 2003-2004 Chisinau, 2005 Content I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 3 1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION ........................................................................................................... 3 2. POPULATION ................................................................................................................................ 4 3. CHURCHES REPRESENTED ........................................................................................................ 4 II. MOLDOVA PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME ............................................................................. 7 1. BRIEF HISTORY OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 7 2. MOLDOVAN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM INITIATIVES 2003-2004. ..................................... 10 III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT REPORTS ..................................................................................... 17 1. SOCIAL PROTECTION HUB ...................................................................................................... 17 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................. 17 PARTNERS’ INITIATIVES IMPLEMENTED: ............................................................................................. 18 MO/002 -Soup Kitchen for elderly people ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 30 | Number 2 Article 5 2003 You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Avery, You Have a Right to Remain Silent, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 571 (2002). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You Have a Right to Remain Silent Cover Page Footnote The Author ppra eciates the advice of Professor Susan Klein, University of Texas Law School with respect to Fifth Amendment issues and the assistance of his colleague Professor Marie Ashe. The assistance of the Deans of Suffolk Law School with summer writing stipends made this work possible. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Michael Avery* INTRODUCTION Everyone who watches television knows that when someone is arrested, the police have to "Mirandize"1 the suspect by reading his rights to him and that one of those rights is the "right to remain silent." The general public also knows that the suspect has the right to see a lawyer.2 Of course, in crime dramas these rights are often violated, but no one questions that they exist.
    [Show full text]
  • CH 10 Confessions
    CONFESSIONS .............................................................................................. 1 §10-1 Fifth Amendment Rights .......................................................................... 1 §10-2 Suppression Motions and Hearings ..................................................... 12 §10-3 Miranda Warnings ................................................................................... 17 §10-3(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 17 §10-3(b) Non-Police Interrogation ............................................................. 26 §10-3(c) “In custody” .................................................................................... 28 §10-3(d) “Interrogation” ............................................................................... 49 §10-4 Waiver of Rights ....................................................................................... 53 §10-4(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 53 §10-4(b) Interrogation After the Right to Counsel Attaches ............... 62 §10-4(c) Interrogation After Request for Counsel ................................. 68 §10-4(d) Interrogation After Request to Remain Silent ....................... 82 §10-5 Voluntariness ............................................................................................ 89 §10-5(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 89 §10-5(b) Examples:
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda, Berghuis, and the Ambiguous Right to Cut Off Police Questioning
    MIRANDA, BERGHUIS, AND THE AMBIGUOUS RIGHT TO CUT OFF POLICE QUESTIONING Laurent Sacharoff ABSTRACT Miranda v. Arizona requires police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. It also requires that if a suspect invokes his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, the police must terminate the interrogation. But the warnings do not tell the suspect he has the right to end the questioning, or how he may end it. Worse, despite a failure to explain the right, the Court in 2010 in Berghuis v. Thompkins, required that suspects invoke the right “unambiguously.” This requirement—that suspects invoke unambiguously a right they do not know exists—has created tremendous uncertainty in lower courts. These courts have no concrete standard against which to measure whether an assertion of the right was unambiguous. This article surveys the recent case law to show how a test that was supposed to simplify whether suspects had invoked their right by imposing an objective, plain meaning test has simply shifted the debate and confusion to what counts as “unambiguous.” I. INTRODUCTION The Court in Miranda v. Arizona1 required police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during any interrogation. But Miranda also created an important new right for suspects that scholars rarely discuss expressly: the right to cut off police questioning.2 Indeed, the Court in Miranda identified lengthy questioning as a chief culprit in creating a potentially coercive atmosphere, compounded by a suspect’s belief that the police will interrogate until he talks.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles the Right to Silence in the Hague International Criminal Courts
    Articles The Right to Silence in The Hague International Criminal Courts By MARK BERGER* Introduction IN THE YEARS SINCE WORLD WAR II, international judicial institu- tions have been increasingly utilized to resolve a wide array of legal disputes between nations.1 At least in part, this suggests recognition that domestic legal systems may not always be suited to the task of handling legal problems that have significant international ramifica- tions. Moreover, while the process of creating international courts and tribunals may be difficult and problematic, the frequent reliance on such institutions demonstrates that nations often conclude that their value is well worth the cost. Perhaps the most logical environment for the use of international judicial institutions is in the resolution of disputes under international agreements. Specialized courts and tribunals focusing on specific trea- ties or compacts have the ability to develop expertise in the agree- ments they interpret, and are therefore likely to produce more consistent and acceptable decisions. Reflecting this approach, the Eu- ropean Union established the European Court of Justice to hear cases raising issues under European Union law,2 and in a similar fashion, * Oliver H. Dean Peer Professor of Law, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. B.A. 1966, Columbia; J.D. 1969, Yale Law School. Support for the preparation of this Article was provided by the University of Missouri Research Board and the UMKC Law School Research Fund. 1. In particular, international judicial institutions have frequently been created to resolve disputes arising under international trade agreements. See, e.g., Marrakesh Agree- ment Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Pre-Arrest, Pre- Miranda Silence Be Admissible During the State’S Case-In-Chief As Substantive Evidence of Guilt?
    STATE V. LOVEJOY: SHOULD PRE-ARREST, PRE- MIRANDA SILENCE BE ADMISSIBLE DURING THE STATE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GUILT? Mark Rucci I. INTRODUCTION II. THE SCOPE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT III. STATE V. LOVEJOY A. Background of Lovejoy B. Discussion of the Fifth Amendment Implications of Lovejoy’s Silence IV. APPROACHES A. The Rationale for Excluding Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence B. The Rationale for Allowing Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence: Jenkins v. Anderson V. THE MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FACTS OF STATE V. LOVEJOY A. Compulsion B. Concerns of Prejudice C. The Case Against Using the Jenkins “Impermissible Burden” Test to Rule Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Admissible in the State’s Case- in-Chief VI. CONCLUSION 396 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 67:2 STATE V. LOVEJOY: SHOULD PRE-ARREST, PRE- MIRANDA SILENCE BE ADMISSIBLE DURING THE STATE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GUILT? Mark Rucci* I. INTRODUCTION Article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution reads in part that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property or privileges . .”1 Further, the Law Court has held that “the State constitutional protection against self-incrimination is the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment.”2 However, as with most provisions of the Constitution, the protection against self-incrimination is open to interpretation.3 While the Supreme Court has answered some questions surrounding the Fifth Amendment’s protections,4 it has left many decisions regarding its scope largely within the purview of the states.5 As a result, The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, like many courts across the United States, has struggled to qualify exactly how Maine’s codification of the Fifth Amendment applies outside of the courtroom.6 * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • SALW Survey of Moldova
    SALW Survey of Moldova Briceni M o l d o v a Edinți Balți Ribnița Falesti Dubasari CHIȘINAU Bender ROMANIA Tiraspol Leova UKRAINE Chaul South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons ISBN 86-7728-015-4 9 7 8 8 6 7 7 2 8 0 1 5 4 SEESAC Internacionalnih Brigada 56, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse Tel. (+381) (11) 344 6353 / Fax. (+381) (11) 344 6356 for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons URL: www.seesac.org / Email: [email protected] SALW Survey of Moldova (2006-07-01) The South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC) has a mandate from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SCSP) to further support all international and national stakeholders by strengthening national and regional capacity to control and reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and thus contribute to enhanced stability, security and development in South Eastern and Eastern Europe. For further information contact: Head, SEESAC Internacionalnih Brigada 56 11000 Belgrade Serbia Tel: (+381) (11) 344 6353 Fax: (+381) (11) 344 6356 www.seesac.org SALW Survey of Moldova, SEESAC 2006 Acknowledgements The report was researched jointly by Zachary Taylor and David Wood of Saferworld and by Viorel Cibotaru, Iurie Pintea and Ana Rudico of the Chişinău based Institute for Public Policy (IPP). The report was written by David Wood and was edited and project managed by Simon Rynn and Henry Smith of Saferworld, with additional editorial support provided by Anna Richards of Saferworld.
    [Show full text]
  • US Department of State Self Study Guide for Moldova, March 2002
    Description of document: US Department of State Self Study Guide for Moldova, March 2002 Requested date: 11-March-2007 Released date: 25-Mar-2010 Posted date: 19-April-2010 Source of document: Freedom of Information Act Office of Information Programs and Services A/GIS/IPS/RL U. S. Department of State Washington, D. C. 20522-8100 Fax: 202-261-8579 Note: This is one of a series of self-study guides for a country or area, prepared for the use of USAID staff assigned to temporary duty in those countries. The guides are designed to allow individuals to familiarize themselves with the country or area in which they will be posted. The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Manual for Prosecutors
    HUMAN RIGHTS MANUAL FOR PROSECUTORS international association of prosecutors HUMAN RIGHTS MANUAL FOR PROSECUTORS Egbert Myjer Barry Hancock, Nicolas Cowdery (Eds.) international association of prosecutors Human Rights Manual for Prosecutors. Egbert Myjer, Barry Hancock, Nicolas Cowdery (Eds.). Published by the International Association of Prosecutors in cooperation with aolf Legal Publishers (WLP), 2009. ISBN: 978-90-5850-459-3 1st edition (2003) 2nd completely revised edition (2009) International Association of Prosecutors Hartogstraat 13 2514 EP The Hague The Netherlands Tel. +31 70 3630345 +31 70 3630352 Fax. +31 70 3630367 e-mail: sg@ iap.nl.com [email protected] Publisher: René & Willem-Jan van der Wolf Published by: aolf Legal Publishers (WLP) P.O.Box 31051 6503 CB Nijmegen The Netherlands Tel: +31 24-3551904 Fax: + 31 24-3554827; E-Mail: [email protected] Http://www.wolfpublishers.com Disclaimer: Whilst the authors, editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of this publication, the publisher, authors and editors cannot accept responsibility for any errors, omissions, misstatements, or mistakes and accept no responsibility for the use of the information presented in this work. ©IAP/ WLP 2009. CONTENTS foreword i introduction iii International instruments cited in the present manual v Cases of the European Court of Human Rights ix Abbreviations xi ‘human rights on duty’: an introduction 1 international human rights law 5 international standards for the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession 9 human
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Right to Silence and Prosecutorial Misconduct Violated His Right to a Fair Trial
    7 • C M <-.'! r • • 1.-, r- IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 71756-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ELMER ANDREWS VILLAFUERTE, Appellant. FILED: July 27, 2015 Appelwick, J. — Villafuerte appeals from his conviction for assault in the second degree (domestic violence). He contends that an improper comment on his constitutional right to silence and prosecutorial misconduct violated his right to a fair trial. We affirm Villafuerte's conviction and remand only to permit the trial court to strike or clarify two sentencing conditions. FACTS At about 7:00 p.m. on July 24, 2013, Teresa Coalman was driving with her husband near the Space Needle when she saw a young woman, later identified as Christelle Villafuerte, trying to flag her down. Coalman asked her husband to stop the van and then rolled down the window. Christelle was visibly upset and asked to use Coalman's cell phone. Christelle repeatedly said that "he choked me." After Coalman got out of the van, Christelle said that her husband, Elmer Villafuerte, had choked her. When Coalman asked where her husband was, No. 71756-1-1/2 Christelle pointed down the sidewalk to a man wearing jeans and a tee shirt. The man then ran away. Coalman called 911. While Coalman was speaking with the 911 operator, Christelle told Coalman that Villafuerte had choked and hit her after she grabbed his shirt. Christelle pointed to the left side of her face, but Coalman did not see any physical injuries. Seattle Police Officer Daljit Gill responded to the 911 call.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Arrest and Detention Part 1: Arrest
    280 • Chapter 8, Part 4 281 Chapter 9: Arrest and Detention Part 1: Arrest Article 169: The Right to Presumption of Liberty and Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest or Detention 1. No person may be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. 2. No person may be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as prescribed by the applicable law. Commentary Paragraph 1: The right of a person to not be arbitrarily arrested or detained is found in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(1) of the Interna- tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 7(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Arti- cle 20 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and Principle 2 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Impris- onment. The concept of arbitrariness applies to both the law under which a person is arrested and to the application of the law. An arrest or detention may be arbitrary if the law is arbitrary or if the actions of a criminal justice actor (e.g., a police officer) are arbitrary. The term arbitrary has been interpreted as meaning an arrest or detention that includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability and due process of law (see the United Nations Human Rights Committee case of Albert Womah Mukong v.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Arrest Silence: Minding That Gap Between Fourth Amendment Stops and Fifth Amendment Custody Sara Ciarelli
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 93 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2003 Pre-Arrest Silence: Minding That Gap between Fourth Amendment Stops and Fifth Amendment Custody Sara Ciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Sara Ciarelli, Pre-Arrest Silence: Minding That Gap between Fourth Amendment Stops and Fifth Amendment Custody, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 651 (2002-2003) This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/03/9302-0651 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 93, No. 2-3 Copyright ( 2003 byNorthwestem University, School of Law Printed in USA. COMMENTS PRE-ARREST SILENCE: MINDING THAT GAP BETWEEN FOURTH AMENDMENT STOPS AND FIFTH AMENDMENT CUSTODY SARA CIARELLI* I. INTRODUCTION The legal aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 has raised countless issues regarding the rights of the criminally accused balanced against the government's interest in gathering intelligence and protecting the nation.' A recent incident involving airport security highlighted the tension between the attempt to heighten national security and a citizen's constitutional procedural protections.
    [Show full text]