Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary
Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary
Seattle University Law Review
This article first demonstrates that courts historically did not trust penal interest statements in general, and that courts were extremely suspicious of any statements by a third party that implicated the defendant. Since Washington adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) verbatim, this article then analyzes the legislative history of the rule. The article concludes that the legislative history favored exclusion of inculpatory statements but that Congress failed to codify the exclusion because of unrelated problems. Finally, the article discusses the confrontation clause problems that arise when inculpatory statements are allowed into evidence. This article argues that the Parris holding should …
Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach
Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach
Seattle University Law Review
The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested.