Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Dna Analysis And The Confrontation Clause: “Special Needs” Category For Dna Testimonial Evidence, Colleen Clark
Dna Analysis And The Confrontation Clause: “Special Needs” Category For Dna Testimonial Evidence, Colleen Clark
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment examines three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with forensic evidence and how its use is affected by the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause provides a defendant with the right to confront adverse witnesses. Notably, in Williams v. Illinois, Justice Breyer pointed out that the Court has explicitly not addressed the “outer limits of the “testimonial statements” rule set forth in Crawford v. Washington.” Specifically, Justice Breyer asked how “the Confrontation Clause [applies] to the panoply of crime laboratory reports and underlying technical statements written by (or otherwise made by) laboratory technicians?” This question, while left …
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the Young court’s opinion and the potential consequences of the majority’s cursory rejection of the government’s inevitable discovery argument. This Note also reconciles the differing applications of the inevitable discovery doctrine by the Young majority and dissent and highlights the speculative nature of employing the inevitable discovery doctrine based on the facts of Young. Part I of this Note presents the background of the case and the historical development of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, focusing on the inevitable discovery doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. Part II outlines the Young decision and analyzes …
A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy
A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment will trace the history of the hearsay rule under both common law and California law. It examines the early use of the common law state of mind hearsay exception regarding statements of fear and physical abuse. It will also discuss the enactment of the California Evidence Code (hereinafter "Code") and the later codification of the state of mind hearsay exception. In addition, it will examine People v. Ruiz, a case which applied the Code's state of mind hearsay exception to prohibit statements regarding the victims' fear of the defendant and the physical abuse which the defendant inflicted on …
Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews
Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews
Golden Gate University Law Review
This article discusses how courts admit and exclude threat hearsay in the domestic homicide context and suggests an approach for admission of such evidence. After analyzing the current evidentiary status of the victim's statements regarding threats in homicide cases in which an apparently abusive spouse/partner is accused, I argue for adoption of a new hearsay exception that permits systematic admission of victims' statements concerning threats and violence by the accused. The victim can no longer speak for herself because she has been killed, often because the law is apparently helpless to intervene on her behalf, even when asked. Consequently, the …
California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso
California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment will initially discuss the history of the shield law in California and examine how it has been defined by the courts in the leading cases. It will also discuss New York Times, Delaney and Hallissy in terms of the courts' application of the shield law to those cases. The analyses of New York Times and Hallissy will be contrasted with that of Delaney. This Comment will attempt to show how the New York Times/Hallissy analysis could have been applied to the facts of Delaney and still have yielded the same result. Recommendations will be made with respect to …
Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka
Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka
Golden Gate University Law Review
This comment will examine the Amber B. court's decision to characterize evidence provided by the mental health professionals as scientific evidence and not as expert opinion. Secondly, this comment will explore the desirability of imposing the scientific evidence standard, usually applied in criminal cases, to dependency hearings. Finally, this comment will discuss the implications of the Amber B. decision in light of the already present evidentiary difficulties of proving child sexual abuse claims and the social policy of protecting the welfare of the abused child.