Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (65)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (25)
- Pepperdine University (2)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
-
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (2)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (2)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- Selected Works (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Maine School of Law (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Massachusetts School of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (35)
- Touro Law Review (24)
- Michigan Law Review (14)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (7)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (6)
-
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Faculty Testimony (2)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (2)
- Pepperdine Law Review (2)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- ConLawNOW (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Kentucky Law Journal (1)
- Maine Law Review (1)
- Martin A. Schwartz (1)
- Maryland Law Review (1)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (1)
- Other Publications (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- University of Massachusetts Law Review (1)
- University of Richmond Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 61 - 90 of 112
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Dial-In Testimony, Richard D. Friedman, Bridget Mary Mccormack
Dial-In Testimony, Richard D. Friedman, Bridget Mary Mccormack
Articles
For several hundred years, one of the great glories of the common law system of criminal justice has been the requirement that prosecution witnesses give their testimony in the presence of the accused" face to face," in the time-honored phrase-under oath, subject to cross-examination, and, unless unfeasible, in open court. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." But now a new way is developing for witnesses for the prosecution …
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony, Richard D. Friedman
Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Recently, the Supreme Court declined to pass on to Congress a proposed change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26 submitted to it by the Judicial Conference. In this Article, Professor Friedman addresses this proposal, which would allow for more extensive use of remote, video-based testimony at criminal trials. He agrees with the majority of the Court that the proposal raised serious problems under the Confrontation Clause. He also argues that a revised proposal, in addition to better protecting the confrontation rights of defendants, should include more definite quality standards, abandon its reliance on the definition of unavailability found in …
The Conundrum Of Children, Confrontation, And Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman
The Conundrum Of Children, Confrontation, And Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The adjudication of child abuse claims poses an excruciatingly difficult conundrum. The crime is a terrible one, but false convictions are abhorrent. Often the evidence does not support a finding of guilt or innocence with sufficient clarity to allow a decision free of gnawing doubt. In many cases, a large part of the problem is that the prosecution's case depends critically on the statement or testimony of a young child. Even with respect to adult witnesses, the law of hearsay and confrontation is very perplexing, as anyone who has studied American evidentiary law and read Supreme Court opinions on the …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …
Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda
Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda
Michigan Law Review
Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …
Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court once again has the opportunity to grapple with the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendmel).t. The basic facts of Lilly are simple, for they present the ageold problem of accomplice confessions. Three men, Gary Barker and Ben and Mark Lilly, went on a crime spree, during which one of them shot to death a young man they had robbed and kidnaped. Ben Lilly was charged with being the triggerman, and Barker testified to that effect at Ben's trial. Mark did not testify. But Mark had made a statement to the …
Confrontation Confronted, Richard D. Friedman, Margaret A. Berger, Steven R. Shapiro
Confrontation Confronted, Richard D. Friedman, Margaret A. Berger, Steven R. Shapiro
Articles
The following article is an edited version of the amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1998, in the case of Benjamin Lee Lilly v. Commonwealth of Virginia (No. 98-5881). "This case raises important questions about the meaning of the confrontation clause, which has been a vital ingredient of the fair trial right for hundreds of years," Professor Richard Friedman and his co-authors say. "In particular, this case presents the Court with an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between the confrontation clause and the law of hearsay." On June 10 the …
Truth And Its Rivals In The Law Of Hearsay And Confrontation (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law)." , Richard D. Friedman
Truth And Its Rivals In The Law Of Hearsay And Confrontation (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law)." , Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this paper, I will look at the problem of hearsay and confrontation through the lens offered by this symposium's theme of "truth and its rivals." I will ask: To what extent does the law of hearsay and confrontation aspire to achieve the goal of truth in litigation? To what extent does it, or should it, seek to achieve other goals, or to satisfy other constraints on the litigation system? And, given the ends that it seeks to achieve, what should the shape of the law in this area be? My principal conclusions are as follows: In most settings, the …
Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to be confronted with the Witnesses against him."' The Confrontation Clause clearly applies to those witnesses who testify against the accused at trial. Moreover, it is clear enough that confrontation ordinarily includes the accused's right to have those witnesses brought "face-toface," in the time-honored phrase, when they testify.2 But confrontation is much more than this "face-to-face" right. It also comprehends the right to have witnesses give their testimony under oath and to subject them to crossexamination. 3 Indeed, the Supreme Court has treated the accused's …
Confrontation And The Definition Of Chutzpa, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation And The Definition Of Chutzpa, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
You may know the standard illustration of chutzpa - the man who kills both his parents and then begs the sentencing court to have mercy on an orphan. In this article, I discuss a case of chutzpa that is nearly as outlandish - the criminal defendant who, having rendered his victim unavailable to testify, contends that evidence of the victim's statement should not be admitted against him because to do so would violate his right to confront her. I contend that in a case like this the defendant should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right. On the same …
Self-Incrimination, Court Of Appeals People V. Siegel
Self-Incrimination, Court Of Appeals People V. Siegel
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman
Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …
Right To Cross-Examine: People V. Pereda
Washington's Closed-Circuit Testimony Statute: An Exception To The Confrontation Clause To Protect Victims In Child Abuse Prosecutions, Karen R. Hornbeck
Washington's Closed-Circuit Testimony Statute: An Exception To The Confrontation Clause To Protect Victims In Child Abuse Prosecutions, Karen R. Hornbeck
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that E.S.H.B. 2809 should be recognized as an exception to the Confrontation Clause by the Supreme Courts of the United States and Washington. This argument rests upon the premise that E.S.H.B. 2809 falls within the boundaries set by previously recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule and by federal and Washington case law. Indeed, the reliability and trustworthiness of the victim's testimony should not turn on the child's ability to withstand the additional psychological trauma often induced by in-court testimony.' Rather, the special problems that these children bring to the courtroom demand compliance with a statute such as …
Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt
Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt
Michigan Law Review
Currently, the circuits are divided on whether comments by co-defendants' counsel on a defendant's silence impair that defendant's fifth amendment rights. Furthermore, among the circuits that regard such commentary as potentially prejudicial, disagreement exists over the proper test for identifying such comments. This Note asserts that the risk of prejudicing a defendant's fifth amendment rights is too great to allow counsel any comment on a defendant's decision to testify or to remain silent.
Part I of this Note examines the historical evolution of the privilege against self-incrimination and the policy goals behind the privilege. The Note argues that prohibiting comments …
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination, John O. Sonsteng
The Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination, John O. Sonsteng
Faculty Scholarship
This article examines the fifth amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, as compared to principles in confession law. These two areas of law are not the same. In 1966, however, the Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona announced that many of the principles involved in confession law also implicated the fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The popular impact of Miranda has resulted in the equating of confession law with the fifth amendment privilege. This article examines the history of the fifth amendment privilege, its application, and how it can be distinguished from other, related areas of law.