Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (33)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (6)
- University of Colorado Law School (3)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
-
- West Virginia University (2)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Duke Law (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Osgoode Hall Law School of York University (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Windsor (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- William & Mary Law School (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (29)
- Touro Law Review (6)
- Publications (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (2)
-
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (1)
- OSSA Conference Archive (1)
- Osgoode Hall Law Journal (1)
- Other Publications (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Forum (1)
- University of Richmond Law Review (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1)
- Villanova Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 61
Full-Text Articles in Law
False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin
False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin
Faculty Scholarship
According to the popular culture of criminal trials, skillful cross-examination can reveal the whole “truth” of what happened. In a climactic scene, defense counsel will expose a lying accuser, clear up the statements of a confused eyewitness, or surface the incentives and biases in testimony. Constitutional precedents, evidence theory, and trial procedures all reflect a similar aspiration—that cross-examination performs lie detection and thereby helps to produce accurate outcomes. Although conceptualized as a protection for defendants, cross-examination imposes some unexplored costs on them. Because it focuses on the physical presence of a witness, the current law of confrontation suggests that an …
Cross-Examination Of Witnesses In Chinese Criminal Courts: Theoretical Debates, Practical Barriers, And Potential Solutions, Zhiyuan Guo
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
Questioning witnesses is essential for both fact-finding and ensuring the defendant's right to confrontation in criminal trials. Part I introduces the recently released judicial interpretation on the Application of Criminal Procedure Law by China's Supreme Court as a background for discussion of this Article. In Part II, the author sets the stage by arguing that resolution of questions concerning examination and cross-examination of witnesses is essential to the effective achievement of China's trial-centered criminal procedure law reform. In Part III, a historical review is given of the academic debate on the questioning of witnesses in Chinese criminal courts. Part IV …
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
OSSA Conference Archive
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.
Law Symposium: Adjudicating Sexual Misconduct On Campus: Title Ix And Due Process In Uncertain Times, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden
Law Symposium: Adjudicating Sexual Misconduct On Campus: Title Ix And Due Process In Uncertain Times, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.
Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
The Child Quasi-Witness, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
Articles
This Essay provides a solution to the conundrum of statements made by very young children and offered against an accused in a criminal prosecution. Currently prevailing doctrine allows one of three basic outcomes. First, in some cases the child testifies at trial. But this is not always feasible, and when it is, cross-examination is a poor method for determining the truth. Second, evidence of the child's statement may be excluded, which denies the adjudicative process of potentially valuable information. Third, the evidence may be admitted without the child testifying at trial, which leaves the accused with no practical ability to …
Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin
Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I …
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Leon, Madeline Katz, Madeline Klotz
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Leon, Madeline Katz, Madeline Klotz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell, Kathleen B. Martin
Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell, Kathleen B. Martin
University of Richmond Law Review
This article aims to give the criminal law practitioner a succinct review of significant cases regarding criminal law and procedure decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court ofAppeals of Virginia during the past year. The authors have focused their discussion of the cases on cogent points found in the holdings. The article also briefly summarizes recent legislative enactments pertaining to criminal law.
Turn-Coat Disclosure: The Importance Of Following Procedure - Turturro V. City Of New York, Brittany A. Fiorenza
Turn-Coat Disclosure: The Importance Of Following Procedure - Turturro V. City Of New York, Brittany A. Fiorenza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Taking The Stand: Access To Justice For Witnesses With Mental Disabilities In Sexual Assault Cases, Janine Benedet, Isabel Grant
Taking The Stand: Access To Justice For Witnesses With Mental Disabilities In Sexual Assault Cases, Janine Benedet, Isabel Grant
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In this article the authors argue that the existing adversarial trial process often prevents the stories of sexual assault complainants with mental disabilities from being heard in court. Relying on social science evidence, the authors argue that subjecting a woman with a mental disability to a rigorous cross-examination with repeated and leading questions, in a manner that is confrontational and often accusatory, is probably the worst way to get her story heard accurately in court. It is likely to unfairly undermine her credibility and to result in unjustified acquittals or in prosecutors deciding not to pursue a case. The article …
Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham
Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington radically transformed the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Before Crawford, a prosecutor could introduce against an accused evidence of a hearsay statement, even one made in contemplation that it would be used in prosecution, so long as the statement fit within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception or the court otherwise determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable to warrant admissibility. Crawford recognized that the Clause is a procedural guarantee, governing the manner in which prosecution witnesses give their testimony. Therefore, a prosecutor may not introduce a statement that is testimonial …
The Sky Is Still Not Falling, Richard D. Friedman
The Sky Is Still Not Falling, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Cases since Crawford have mainly fallen into two categories. One involves accusations of crime, made by the apparent victim shortly after the incident. In Michigan v. Bryant, a majority of the Court adopted an unfortunately constricted view of the word "testimonial" in this context. That decision was a consequence of the Court having failed to adopt a robust view of when an accused forfeits the confrontation right. How the Court will deal with this situation-one mistake made in an attempt to compensate for another-is a perplexing and important question. This Essay, though, concentrates on the other principal category of post-Crawford …
Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman
Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
One of the central protections of our system of criminal justice is the right of the accused in all criminal prosecutions "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It provides assurance that prosecution witnesses will give their testimony in the way demanded for centuries by Anglo-American courts-in the presence of the accused, subject to cross-examination- rather than in any other way. Witnesses may not, for example, testify by speaking privately to governmental agents in a police station or in their living rooms. Since shortly after it was adopted, however, the confrontation right became obscured by the ascendance of a …
Confrontation And Domestic Violence Post-Davis: Is There And Should There Be A Doctrinal Exception, Eleanor Simon
Confrontation And Domestic Violence Post-Davis: Is There And Should There Be A Doctrinal Exception, Eleanor Simon
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
Close to five million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against women in the United States annually. Domestic violence accounts for twenty percent of all non-fatal crime experienced by women in this county. Despite these statistics, many have argued that in the past six years the Supreme Court has "put a target on [the] back" of the domestic violence victim, has "significantly eroded offender accountability in domestic violence prosecutions," and has directly instigated a substantial decline in domestic violence prosecutions. The asserted cause is the Court's complete and groundbreaking re-conceptualization of the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal …
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …
Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman
Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report, prepared for use in a criminal proceeding and identifying a substance as cocaine, "testimonial" evidence and so subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?
Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman
Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
If an accused murdered a witness, should he be deemed to have forfeited the right under the Sixth Amendment "to be confronted with" the witness, absent proof that the accused committed the murder for the purpose of rendering her unavailable as a witness?
Innocent Until Proven (Hypothetically) Guilty: The Third Circuit Condones The Use Of Guilt-Assuming Hypotheticals In United States V. Kellogg, Eric M. Kubilus
Innocent Until Proven (Hypothetically) Guilty: The Third Circuit Condones The Use Of Guilt-Assuming Hypotheticals In United States V. Kellogg, Eric M. Kubilus
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crawford, Davis, And Way Beyond, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford, Davis, And Way Beyond, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Until 1965, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution hardly mattered. It was not applicable against the states, and therefore had no role whatsoever in the vast majority of prosecutions. Moreover, if a federal court was inclined to exclude evidence of an out-of-court statement, it made little practical difference whether the court termed the statement hearsay or held that the evidence did not comply with the Confrontation Clause.
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …
We Really (For The Most Part) Mean It!, Richard D. Friedman
We Really (For The Most Part) Mean It!, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I closed my petition for certiorari in Hammon v. Indiana by declaring, “ ‘We really mean it!’ is the message that lower courts need to hear, and that decision of this case can send.” The prior year, Crawford v. Washington had transformed the law of the Confrontation Clause, holding that an out-ofcourt statement that is testimonial in nature may be admitted against an accused only if the maker of the statement is unavailable and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine her. But Crawford deliberately left undetermined what the term “testimonial” meant. Many lower courts gave it a grudging …
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Publications
This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.