A Comparative View of the Law of Interrogation

International Criminal Justice Review

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 5-26

  ma, Yue ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Canada; China; England; France; Germany; police interrogation; preinterrogation warnings; Russia; United States

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993711372     PISSN: 10575677     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1057567706298912     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Bar, C. L. V. (1916). A history of continental criminal law. Boston: Little, Brown.
2. Beckman, D. (1995). You have the right to be silent… anything you do not say may be used against you: Is the right to silence in Great Britain really a protection? Dickson Journal of International Law, 14, 95-126.
3. Berger, M. (1990). Legislating confession law in Great Britain: A statutory approach to police interrogations. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 24, 1-64.
4. Berger, M. (2000). Reforming confession law British style: A decade of experience with adverse inferences from silence. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 31, 243-303.
5. Blair, C. (2003). Miranda and the right to silence in England. Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law, 11, 1-20.
6. Bodde, D., & Morris, C. (1967). Law in imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Bradley, C. M. (1993). The emerging international consensus as to criminal procedure rule. Michigan Journal of International Law, 14, 171-221.
8. Bradley, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Criminal procedure: A worldwide study. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
9. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).
10. Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Feb. 27, 1992, BGHSt 38, 214 (F.R.G.).
11. Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981).
12. Chen, G. Z., & Song, Y. H. (2000). Research on issues in implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law. Beijing: China Legality Publishing House.
13. Chen, L. (2004). Power plays: Reallocating power under the new Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 30, 429-472.
14. Chen, R. H. (2000). The frontier issues of Criminal Procedure Law. Beijing: China People's University Press.
15. Cho, K. (1999). Reconstruction of the English criminal justice system and its reinvigorated exclusionary rules. Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, 21, 259-312.
16. Cho, K. (2001). “Procedural weakness” of German criminal justice and its unique exclusionary rules based on the right of personality. Temple International and Comparative Journal, 15, 1-30.
17. Devlin, P. (1958). The criminal prosecution in England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
19. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
20. Ehrmann, H. W. (1976). Comparative legal cultures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Esmein, A. (1913). A history of constitutional criminal procedure. Boston: Little, Brown.
22. Feldman, D. (1990). Regulating treatment of suspects in police stations: Judicial interpretation of detention provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Criminal Law Review, 1990, 452-471.
23. Feldman, D. (1999). England and Wales. In C. M. Bradley (Ed.), Criminal Procedure: A worldwide study (pp. 91-142). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
24. Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out, and why should we care? California Law Review, 3, 539-683.
25. Frase, R. S. (1999). France. In C. M. Bradley (Ed.), Criminal procedure: A worldwide study (pp. 143-185). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
26. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).
27. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S 222 (1971).
28. Hatchard, J. (1996). Criminal procedure in England and Wales. In J. Hatchard, B. Huber, & R. Vogler (Eds.), Comparative criminal procedure (pp. 176-223). London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
29. Hatchard, J., Huber, B., & Vogler, R. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative criminal procedure. London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
30. Huber, B. (1996). Criminal procedure in Germany. In J. Hatchard, B. Huber, & R. Vogler (Eds.), Comparative criminal procedure(96-175). London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
31. Kahn, J. (2002). Russian compliance with Articles Five and Six of the European Convention of Human Rights as a barometer of legal reform and human rights in Russia. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 35, 641-691.
32. Keith, R. C. (1994). China's struggle for the rule of law. New York: St. Martin's.
33. King v. Warickshall, (1783) 168 Eng. Rep. 234 (K.B.).
34. Lee, T. V. (1997). Law, the state, and society in China. New York: Garland.
35. Leng, R. (1993). The right to silence in police interrogation: A study of some of the issues underlying the debate (Royal Commission on Criminal Justice research study no. 10). London: HMSO.
36. Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266-303.
37. Liu, J. C. (2001a). Interpretations of provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Law. Beijing: People's Court Publishing House.
38. Liu, J. C. (2001b). New interpretations and new explanations of the Criminal Procedure Law and relevant regulations. Beijing: People's Court Publishing House.
39. Lu, Q. Z. (1998). Exploring issues concerning the establishment and implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence in China. Law Science, 10, 36-43.
40. Malone, P. (1986). You have the right to remain silent: Miranda after twenty years. American Scholar, 55, 367-380.
41. Merryman, J. H. (1985). The civil law tradition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975).
43. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974).
44. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
45. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
46. Mueller, G. O. W., & Poole-Griffiths, F. L. (1969). Comparative criminal procedure. New York: New York University Press.
47. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
48. Newcombe, C. (1999). Russian Federation. In C. M. Bradley (Ed.), Criminal procedure: A worldwide study (pp. 283-317). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
49. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985).
50. Orland, L. (2002). A Russian legal revolution: The 2002 Criminal Procedure Code. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 18, 113-207.
51. Pakter, W. (1983). Exclusionary rules in France, Germany, and Italy. Hastings International and Comparative Law Reviewxs, 9, 1-57.
52. R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138 (Can.).
53. R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 (Can.).
54. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 (Can.).
55. R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59 (Can.).
56. R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 (Can.).
57. Regina v. Leatham, (1861) 8 Cox C. C. 498.
58. Rice v. Connolly, 2 [1966] Q.B. 414.
59. Roach, K. W. (1999). Canada. In C. M. Bradley (Ed.), Criminal procedure: A worldwide study(pp. 53-79). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
60. Roach, K. W. (2002). American constitutional theory for Canadians (and the rest of the world). University of Toronto Law Journal, 52, 503-521.
61. Shanks, B. F. (1983). Comparative analysis of the exclusionary rule and its alternatives. Tulane Law Review, 57, 648-681.
62. Song, Y. H., & Wu, H. J. (1999). The principle against compulsory self-incrimination and its procedural guarantee. Chinese Legal Science, 1999(2), 117-128.
63. Stribopoulos, J. (1999). Lessons from the pupil: A Canadian solution to the American exclusionary rule debate. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 22, 77-140.
64. Thaman, S. C. (2001). Miranda in comparative law. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 45, 581-624.
65. Thomas, G. C., III, & Leo, R. A. (2002). The effects of Miranda v. Arizona: “Embedded” in our national culture? Crime and Justice, 2002, 203-271.
66. Tomlinson, E. A. (1983). Nonadversarial justice: The French experience. Maryland Law Review, 42, 131-195.
67. Toney, R. J. (2002). English criminal procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for custodial interrogation practices. Houston Journal of International Law, 24, 411-474.
68. Turner, K. G., Feinerman, J. V., & Guy, R. K. (2000). The limits of the rule of law in China. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
69. United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004).
70. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2002, March 4). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices—2001, Russia (§ 1 (C)). Washington, DC: Author.
71. Van Den Wyngaert, C. (Ed.). (1993). Criminal procedure systems in the European community. London: Butterworths.
72. Van Kessel, G. (1992). Adversary excesses in the American criminal trial. Notre Dame Law Review, 67, 403-551.
73. Van Kessel, G. (1998). European perspectives on the accused as a source of testimonial evidence. West Virginia Law Review, 100, 799-845.
74. Vogler, R. (1996). Criminal procedure in France. In J. Hatchard, B. Huber, & R. Vogler (Eds.), Comparative criminal procedure(pp. 14-95). London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
75. Wang, J. M. (1996). “From guilty by adjudication” to “presumption of innocence.” Law Science, 5, 13-15.
76. Weigend, T. (1999). Germany. In C. M. Bradley (Ed.), Criminal procedure: A worldwide study (pp. 187-216). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
77. West, A., Desdevises, Y., Fenet, A., Gaurier, D., & Heussaff, M. (1992). The French legal system. London: Fourmat.
78. Yang, M. (1998). On the implementation of and the departure from the principle of presumption of innocence in our country's Criminal Procedure Law. Law Science, 3, 21-25.
79. Yue, L. L., & Chen, R. H. (1997a). International standards on criminal justice and the amended Criminal Procedure Law in our country. Law Science, 1, 21-25.
80. Yue, L. L., & Chen, R. H. (1997b). International standards on the fair criminal process and the amended Criminal Procedure Law (Part I). Tribune of Political Science and Law, 3, 45-56.
81. Yue, L. L., & Chen, R. H. (1997c). International standards on the fair criminal process and the amended Criminal Procedure Law (Part I). Tribune of Political Science and Law, 4, 37-45.
82. Zheng, X. Y. (2000). A history of the Chinese legal system Beijing: China's People's University Press.
83. Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1987). Introduction to comparative law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.