Requirements for the defendant to actively participate in the English criminal process have been increasing in recent years such that the defendant can now be penalised for their non-cooperation. This book explores the changes to the defendant’s role as a participant in the criminal process and the ramifications of penalising a defendant’s non-cooperation, particularly its effect on the adversarial system. The book develops a normative theory which proposes that the criminal process should operate as a mechanism for calling the state to account for its accusations and request for official condemnation and punishment of the accused. It goes on to examine the limitations placed on the privilege against self-incrimination, the curtailment of the right to silence, and the defendant’s duty to disclose the details of his or her case prior to trial. The book shows that, by placing participatory requirements on defendants and penalising them for their non-cooperation, a system of obligatory participation has developed. This development is the consequence of pursuing efficient fact-finding with little regard for principles of fairness or the rights of the defendant.

The true story of the malpractice trial of Sara Charles, a Chicago psychiatrist, who was sued for $10 million by a patient whose failed suicide attempt left her crippled.

With this comprehensive study, written in lay language, David Fellman provides an up-to-date analysis of the rights of the accused, certain to be welcomed by political scientists, students of public law, and all with an interest in due process of law. Since Fellman's 1958 book, The Defendant's Rights, substantial changes in the criminal justice system have occured. The past few decades before the publication of The Defendant's Rights Today have been witness to a striking expansion of the central concept of due process of law as it relates to criminal justice. The subject of defendants' rights is broad and complex. Fellman here explores its underlying concepts, bringing together a comprehensive discussion of the effects of the criminal justice system on the accused from arrest, through trial, to post-conviction remedies.

“A moving and beautifully crafted memoir.”—SCOTT TUROW “A daring act of justified defiance.”—SHAKA SENGHOR “Nothing less than heroic.”—JOHN GRISHAM He was seventeen when an all-white jury sentenced him to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Now a pioneering lawyer, he recalls the journey that led to his exoneration—and inspired him to devote his life to fighting the many injustices in our legal system. Seventeen years old and facing nearly thirty years behind bars, Jarrett Adams sought to figure out the why behind his fate. Sustained by his mother and aunts who brought him back from the edge of despair through letters of prayer and encouragement, Adams became obsessed with our legal system in all its damaged glory. After studying how his constitutional rights to effective counsel had been violated, he solicited the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, an organization that exonerates the wrongfully convicted, and won his release after nearly ten years in prison. But the journey was far from over. Adams took the lessons he learned through his incarceration and worked his way through law school with the goal of helping those who, like himself, had faced our legal system at its worst. After earning his law degree, he worked with the New York Innocence Project, becoming the first exoneree ever hired by the nonprofit as a lawyer. In his first case with the Innocence Project, he argued before the same court that had convicted him a decade earlier—and won. In this illuminating story of hope and full-circle redemption, Adams draws on his life and the cases of his clients to show the racist tactics used to convict young men of color, the unique challenges facing exonerees once released, and how the lack of equal representation in our courts is a failure not only of empathy but of our collective ability to uncover the truth. Redeeming Justice is an unforgettable firsthand account of the limits—and possibilities—of our country’s system of law.