In this Reply, Professor Sampsell-Jones responds to Speaking of Silence: A Reply to Making Defendants Speak by Professors Cribari and Judges. He argues that their theory of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which relies on intuition to determine which practices are necessary to “test the prosecution” in criminal cases, is lacking in both textual support and practical utility. As a result, he concludes that their defense of Griffin v. California is unconvincing.
- Reining in Private Agents
- Mathis v. U.S. and the Future of the Categorical Approach
- The Twice and Future President Revisited: Of Three-Term Presidents and Constitutional End Runs
- A Place of Their Own: Crowds in the New Market for Equity Crowdfunding
- Improving Technology Neutrality Through Compulsory Licensing
© 2011-2016 Minnesota Law Review. All Rights Reserved.