The Supreme Court and Criminal Procedure

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions in the field of criminal procedure 1 have been directed toward correcting a number of injustices previously imposed upon the criminal defendant.In striking down certain procedures, some of which have been long established in many states, the Court has made some critics fear that these decisions are stating new principles to justify the Court's distaste for some of the practices, and that although injustices have occurred, the Court has over-compensated by weighting the scales too heavily in favor of the criminal defendant.It should be noted at the outset, however, that these critics, in voicing their fears, seem to view the process of criminal justice primarily for its deterrent value and neglect the punishment and the rehabilitative goals of the process.The resulting apprehension is felt among prosecuting attorneys, law-enforcement officers, trial and appellate judges, and members of the general public.2 In the hope of dispelling at least some of the apprehension (or frustration), this article shall comment briefly upon a few of the problems that have been presented as a result of these decisions.Partially responsible for the problems in this area are divergent views regarding two of the objectives of our Constitution: to "insure domestic Tranquility . . .and [to] secure the Blessings of Liberty. . .... Much of the recent criticism of the Court seems to * This article is adapted from a speech delivered before the States Attorneys Association of Maryland, on June 11, 1965, at Ocean City, Maryland.** United States District Judge, District of Maryland.LL.B., George Wash-