This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Weddington, M. M. Articles by Janikowski, W. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Rehnquist Court—The Counter-Revolution that wasn't, Part 2: The Counter-Revolution that is

W. Richard Janikowski

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.

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, 231-250 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/073401689602100207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?