Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure

So much is left out
What about all the case law, such as Miranda v. Arizona and Chambers v. Florida which implemented Miranda warning, and many. many other cases that changed US criminal procedure nationwide? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Miranda, Massiah, the Fourth Amendment, etc. are about criminal investigations, i.e. cops and robbers. This article is about criminal procedure, i.e. legal proceedings. This distinction makes much conceptual sense (the former constitutional provisions regulate law enforcement officers; the latter regulate lawyers: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys), and in fact most law schools teach criminal investigations and criminal procedure as separate courses. Savidan 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Grand jury clause should be lower case
That is. if the article is to be correct. I added the link to the article Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Grand jury is not capitalized by legal writers and shouldn't be for the general reader. MathewTownsend (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is a reference to the Grand Jury Clause, it probably should be capitalized. In this instance it's a proper noun. Lord Roem (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Another immigration issue
Sorry to be the weird guy adding immigration related counsel issues but... Should any discussion of In re Lozada (which I plan on writing shortly) and the mess that has followed it be made? Essentially the oddity is that while you have no right to appointed counsel in deportation hearings you do have a right under Lozada (now upheld by Eric Holder, though briefly struck down by Michael Mukasey) to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is only about cases that are both (1) constitutional and (2) criminal. While I am not familiar with Lozada, it is not criminal and may not be constitutional. I have no problem pointing out the unavailability of the Sixth Amendment right in civil proceedings, as I think it clarifies the contour of the right, but otherwise this is not the article for deportation procedure. As such, I doubt Lozada is based on the Sixth Amendment; more likely, it just analogizes to Sixth Amendment IAC, and is based on Fifth Amendment due process or sub-constitutional law (although I could be wrong; again, I have not read it). Savidan 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly it does relate to 5th amendment due process, but the complaints over it stem from the fact that no 6th amendment right exists (and without that, according to Mukasey at least) you can't make a connection that puts the government at fault to make there be a Constitutional issue at all. Regardless, your position makes sense, thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)