Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T22:30:25.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Argersinger – One Year Later

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Barton L. Ingraham
Barton L. Ingraham*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The impact of United States Supreme Court decisions on the administration of criminal justice by police and lower courts in this country has been the subject of extensive research. A number of empirical studies on the impact of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (Kuh, 1962; Oaks, 1970), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (Reiss and Black, 1967; Yale Law Review, 1967), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Blumberg, 1966; Sudnow, 1965) and in re Gault (1967) (Duffee and Siegel, 1971) have indicated that Supreme Court decisions have a much smaller impact upon police and court practices than might be expected and that systemic requirements of criminal justice agencies frequently override and suppress the policy objectives of these decisions. The result is the routinization of due process in a way which prevents its requirements from substantially interfering with the operation of the systems involved and the perversion of these requirements to serve organizational ends rather than the ends of justice. These studies raise substantial questions as to the efficacy of attempting to alter the operations of the criminal justice system through constitutional rule-making by the courts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Summer 1974 , pp. 615 - 644
Copyright
Copyright © The Law and Society Association, 1974.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I wish to thank the many district attorneys, assistant district attorneys and state Attorneys General who were kind enough to assist me in the gathering of the data for this article.

References

Cases

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinson v. State, 273 F. Supp. 840 (S.D. Fla. 1967).Google Scholar
Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970).Google Scholar
Cortinez v. Flournoy, 249 La. 741 (memo.); 190 So. 2d 909; cert. den. 385 U.S. 925 (1966).Google Scholar
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963).Google Scholar
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Google Scholar
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).Google Scholar
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).Google Scholar
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
State ex rel. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 236 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1970).Google Scholar
State v. De Joseph, 222 A.2d 752 (Conn. Cir.); cert. den. 385 U.S. 982 (1966).Google Scholar
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).Google Scholar
White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters v. Beck, 397 S.W.2d 364 (Ark.); cert. den. 386 U.S. 907 (1966).Google Scholar

References

ALLEN, Francis A. [Chairman] (1963) Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Poverty and the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1970) Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE (1971) Struggle for Justice. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
ARCURI, Alan F. (1973) “Police Perceptions of Plea Bargaining: A Preliminary Inquiry,” 1 Journal of Police Science and Administration 93.Google Scholar
ARNOLD, Thurman W. (1935) The Symbols of Government. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
AUBERT, Vilhelm (1969) “Law as a Way of Resolving Conflicts: The Case of a Small Industrialized Society,” in Laura, NADER (ed.) Law and Culture in Society. Chicago: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
BECKER, Theodore L. and Malcolm, FEELEY (eds.) (1973) The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions: Empirical Studies. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham (1966) “The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession,” 1 Law & Society Review 15.Google Scholar
CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW (1969) “Right to Counsel: The Impact of Gideon v. Wainwright in Fifty States,” 3 Creighton Law Review 103.Google Scholar
DUFFEE, David and Larry, SIEGEL (1971) “The Organization Man: Legal Counsel in Juvenile Court,” 7 Criminal Law Bulletin 544.Google Scholar
FULLER, L. Lon (1961) “The Adversary System,” in Harold, BERMAN (ed.) Talks on American Law. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
HARVARD LAW REVIEW (1970) “The Unconstitutionality of Plea Bargaining,” 83 Harvard Law Review 1387.Google Scholar
IOWA LAW REVIEW (1970) “Dollars and Sense o{ an Expanded Right to Counsel,” 55 Iowa Law Review 1248.Google Scholar
JUNKER, John M. (1968) “The Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases,” 43 Washington Law Review 685.Google Scholar
KUH, RICHARD (1962) “The Mapp Case One Year After: An Appraisal of its Impact,” New York Law Journal 4 (September 19).Google Scholar
MILESKI, Maureen (1971) “Courtroom Encounters: An Observation Study of a Lower Criminal Court,” 5 Law & Society Review 473.Google Scholar
NEWMAN, Donald J. (1966) Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence without Trial. Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence without Trial: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
NEW YORK STATE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON ATTICA [Official Report] (1972) Attica. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
OAKS, Dallin (1970) “Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure,” 37 University of Chicago Law Review 665.Google Scholar
PACKER, Herbert L. (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (1967) Task Force Report: The Courts. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
REISS, Albert Jr. and Donald, BLACK (1967) “Interrogation and the Criminal Process,” 374 Annals of the American Academy of Political and' Social Science 47.Google Scholar
SILVERSTEIN, Lee (1965) Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts (3 vols.). Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome (1967) “Social Control in the Adversary System,” 11 Journal of Conflict Resolution 59.Google Scholar
SUDNOW, David (1965) “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defenders Office,” 12 Social Problems 255.Google Scholar
UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (1972) Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
WASBY, Stephen L. (1970) The Impact of the United Supreme Court. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
YALE LAW REVIEW (1967) “Interrogations in New Haven: The Impact of Miranda” 76 Yale Law Review 1519.Google Scholar