The Rehnquist Court—The Counter-Revolution that wasn't, Part 2: The Counter-Revolution that is

Abstract

Commentators had predicted that the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist would, at most, continue the Burger Court's purported "moderation" of the rights-based criminal procedure jurisprudence of the Warren era. In fact, however, the Burger Court's characterization of criminal trials as crucibles yielding truth-in-fact, together with its consequent devaluation of rights and procedures that impede this truth-finding function, has led to a constitutional counterrevolution. Analysis of the Court's evolving treatment of truth-finding, harmless error, habeas corpus, and stare decisis reveals a jurisprudence no longer grounded in the due process orientation of the Warren era or even the truth-finding quest of the Burger Court but rooted instead in the Supreme Court's inherent power to impose swiftness and finality on the criminal conviction process.