Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Al-Timimi (2)
- Brandenburg (2)
- Federal law (2)
- Free Speech (2)
- Terror (2)
-
- World War I (2)
- Brain-damaged defendants (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Control tests for insanity (1)
- Criminal behavior (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Insanity defense (1)
- Legal insanity (1)
- Out-of court statements (1)
- Rights of criminal defendant (1)
- Rule 804(b)(6) (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preaching Terror: Free Speech Or Wartime Incitement?, Robert S. Tanenbaum
Preaching Terror: Free Speech Or Wartime Incitement?, Robert S. Tanenbaum
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Preaching Terror: Free Speech Or Wartime Incitement?, Robert S. Tanenbaum
Preaching Terror: Free Speech Or Wartime Incitement?, Robert S. Tanenbaum
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding
The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding
American University Law Review
Brain-damaged defendants are seen everyday in American courtrooms, and in many cases, their criminal behavior appears to be the product of extremely poor judgment and self-control. Some have a disorder in the frontal lobes, the area of the brain responsible for judgment and impulse control. Yet because defendants suffering from frontal lobe dysfunction usually understand the difference between right and wrong, they are unable to avail themselves of the only insanity defense available in many states, a defense based on the narrow McNaghten test. "Irresistible impulse" (or "control") tests, on the other hand, provide an insanity defense to those who …
Procuring The Right To An Unfair Trial: Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6) And The Due Process Implications Of The Rule's Failure To Require Standards Of Reliability For Admissible Evidence, Kelly Rutan
American University Law Review
This Comment argues that though the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing allows a court to forfeit both a defendant’s right to object to the admission of hearsay statements and the right of confrontation, the current state of the law requires all out-of-court statements admitted under Rule 804(b)(6) to possess some level of reliability in order to satisfy due process. Part I of this Comment discusses the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the courts’ treatment of this principle prior to 1997, and its codification into the Federal Rules of Evidence. Part II looks at Confrontation Clause issues unique to hearsay exceptions …