Law Commons^™

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 …

Videoconferencing: Not A Foreign Language To International Courts, Riley A. Williams

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Silencing Grand Jury Witnesses, R. Michael Cassidy

Indiana Law Journal

This Article addresses one crucial aspect of the ongoing debate about grand jury transparency. Assuming that well over half the states and the federal government continue to employ the grand jury to investigate felony offenses, and assuming that these proceedings continue to be shielded from public view, should witnesses themselves be allowed to discuss their testimony with the press or with each other? This larger question raises two narrow but very important subsidiary issues. First, does a prosecutor who conditions a written proffer or cooperation agreement with a grand jury witness on the witness’s promise not to inform other targets, …

Come Back To The Boat, Justice Breyer!, Richard D. Friedman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

I want to get Justice Breyer back on the right side of Confrontation Clause issues. In 1999, in Lilly v. Virginia, he wrote a farsighted concurrence, making him one of the first members of the Supreme Court to recognize the inadequacy of the then-prevailing doctrine of the Confrontation Clause. That doctrine, first announced in Ohio v. Roberts, was dependent on hearsay law and made judicial assessments of reliability determinative. In Crawford v. Washington, the Court was presented with an alternative approach, making the key inquiry whether the statement in question was testimonial in nature. During the oral …

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 Crawford Debacle, George Fisher

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

First a toast—to my colleague Jeff Fisher and his Crawford compatriot, Richard Friedman, on the tenth anniversary of their triumph: What they achieved in Crawford is every lawyer’s dream. By dint of sheer vision and lawyerly craft, they toppled what many saw as a flawed confrontation-law regime and put in its place one that promised greater justice. For that, much applause is due. Still there’s no denying their doctrine’s a muddle, if not as conceived, then as realized. Consider the count: Four justices almost agree on Crawford’s contours but patch over the issues that divide them. A fifth justice …

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

Pain, Love, And Voice: The Role Of Domestic Violence Victims In Sentencing, Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg, Dana Pugach

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Criminal law systems throughout the world have evolved to a stage where they no longer ask, "What is the appropriate role of the victim in a criminal trial?" The questions now relate to the scope of the victim's rights, in which procedures she has independent standing, and at what stage she should be heard. The process of the "prosecution stepping into the victim's shoes," whereby the state controls the entire criminal process, seemingly on behalf of the victim, has been replaced by the recognition that the interests of the prosecution (the State) are not always consistent with those of the …

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 …

Expanding Forfeiture Without Sacrificing Confrontation After Crawford, Joshua Deahl

Michigan Law Review

The central holding of Crawford v. Washington is fairly straightforward: The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford, however, has an often overlooked caveat. In renouncing numerous exceptions to the confrontation right, the Court rejected only those that purport to test the reliability of testimonial statements. It left equitable exceptions undisturbed. As the Court pointed out, "[T]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds." The parameters of the rule of forfeiture are a matter of some dispute. …

Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony - A Prosecutor's Perspective, Lynn Helland

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Although the Supreme Court has declined, for now, to endorse the Judicial Conference proposal to add a Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit live video testimony under limited circumstances, I agree with Professor Friedman that the matter is far from over. This is both because the potential benefits to be realized from the use of remote video testimony are too large to ignore and because, on closer inspection, any Confrontation Clause concerns that might underlie the Court's hesitation to adopt the proposal are not warranted. My purpose in writing is to summarize some of the …

Problems In Domestic Violence: Should Victims Be Forced To Participate In The Prosecution Of Their Abusers?, Thomas L. Kirsch Ii

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Criminal Discovery: What Truth Do We Seek?, Milton C. Lee Jr.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause, Court Of Appeals: People V. Ortiz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bouncing "Checkbook Journalism": A Balance Between The First And Sixth Amendments In High-Profile Criminal Cases, James R. Cady

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Legislation recently enacted in California attempts to preserve further the right of the accused to a fair trial and the integrity of judicial proceedings by allowing criminal prosecution of jurors and witnesses who would enter agreements for or accept payment, benefit, or other consideration in exchange for information pertaining to criminal trials. This note analyzes the constitutionality of this legislation through an evaluation and a balancing of the rights and interests of the accused, the jurors, the witnesses, the press, and the public implicated in criminal trials. Despite supporting compelling governmental interests, certain portions of the statutes are too broad, …

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Taking The Stand, Barbara A. Babcock

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Silence: Should Jurors Be Allowed To Question Witnesses During Trial?, Jeffrey S. Berkowitz

Vanderbilt Law Review

The above line of questioning destroyed the defendant's chance of being acquitted. Surprisingly, however, the questions that sealed the defendant's fate were raised by a juror after the prosecutor had failed to elicit the devastating facts.'

The notion of allowing jurors to question witnesses during a trial is not a novel one, but the governmental entities responsible for supervising the court system never have encouraged the practice.' As a result, juror questioning is not widespread.' This situation, however, may be changing. During 1989 judges in at least thirty states, including New York, California, and Connecticut, agreed to conduct the first …

Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View, Paula E. Hill, Samuel M. Hill

Michigan Law Review

Increases in the number of reported incidents of child abuse and sexual molestation have resulted in more and younger children becoming courtroom participants. Some courts refuse to consider the special needs of the child in this adversarial environment. Relying on questionable precedent, these courts hold that the defendant's right to directly confront the child, as well as strict compliance with evidentiary rules, overrides that child's interest in freedom from embarrassment or psychological trauma. This Note focuses on pressures felt by the testifying child and the ways in which these pressures affect her testimony; it then proposes using videotaped testimony as …

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach Criminal Defendants - Do The Risks Outweigh The Benefits?, James W. Betro

Antioch Law Journal

The use of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant-witness is generally accepted in most American jurisdictions.'Such evidence is allowed in order to present the jury with the general character of a witness so that they may be better able to decide as to his or her tendency to lie on the witness stand.2 The rationale behind this rule is based on the theory that a witness who has been previously convicted of a crime may be less likely to tell the truth than someone who has never been convicted.3 Unfortunately, when a criminal defendant takes the …

I Cannot Tell A Lie: The Standard For New Trial In False Testimony Cases, Daniel Wolf

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the question of what standard should be used for granting a new trial when a defendant's conviction is alleged to have been based, at least in part, on false testimony. Part I demonstrates the failure of the existing standards to strike a satisfactory balance between defendants' rights and the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Part II argues that motions for retrial based upon false testimony should be governed by a standard drawn not only from newly discovered evidence cases generally, but also from cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Part III suggests that the proper test …

The Prosecutorial Perspective: The Victim And Witness Protection Act Of 1982, William A. Kolibash

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Compulsory Process Ii, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the …

Hearsay And Confrontation: Can The Criminal Defendant's Rights Be Preserved Under A Bifurcated Standard?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Compulsory Process Clause, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article traces the history of compulsory process, from its origin in the English transition from an inquisitional to an adversary system of procedure to its eventual adoption in the American Bill of Rights. Part II examines the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Washington v. Texas, which recognized after a century and a half of silence that the compulsory process clause was designed to enable the defendant not only to produce witnesses, but to put them on the stand and have them heard. Part III studies the implications of compulsory process for the defendant's case, from the …

Out-Of-State Witnesses And Compulsory Process: The Indigent Defendant's Rights

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.