Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (16)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (12)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (5)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- University of Maine School of Law (2)
-
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (12)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (6)
- Indiana Law Journal (5)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (5)
- Michigan Law Review (4)
-
- American University Law Review (2)
- Maine Law Review (2)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (1)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Forum (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 45
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
How should the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment be interpreted as to machine witnesses? Courts across the country have resisted efforts to cross-examine the human agents who assist machines that generate data used in criminal trials. Such challenges under the Confrontation Clause have been rejected directly and in great number, and the rules of evidence are largely being read to not require the testimony of those who have the best information about the machine's use for the case at hand. This problem arises in an era of machine exceptionalism and widespread use. From increasingly sophisticated forensic lab tools to …
The Confrontation Clause: Employing The "Greatest Legal Engine Ever Invented For The Discovery Of Truth" To Promote Justice In Criminal Courts, Ani Oganesian
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
Maine Law Review
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to “confront witnesses against them.” Specifically, the Clause ensures a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses who testify against him by the unique medium, or “crucible,” of cross-examination. Although federal and state rules of evidence prohibiting hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar interests, whether or not admission of a piece of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a separate analysis than whether that same piece of evidence is admissible under a rule of evidence. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held …
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Maine Law Review
In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …
That's What She Said: An Evaluation Of Whether Hearsay Exceptions Should Be Permitted In Accusatory Instruments, Andrea Laterza
That's What She Said: An Evaluation Of Whether Hearsay Exceptions Should Be Permitted In Accusatory Instruments, Andrea Laterza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Michigan Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the …
Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Blew It: The Confrontation Clause & Breathalyzers As Testimonial Evidence, Stephanie Tuorto
You Blew It: The Confrontation Clause & Breathalyzers As Testimonial Evidence, Stephanie Tuorto
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Nieves-Andino, Jason Gines
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Nieves-Andino, Jason Gines
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 Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …
Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Decline Of The Confrontation Clause In New York - People V. Encarnacion, Anthony Fasano
The Decline Of The Confrontation Clause In New York - People V. Encarnacion, Anthony Fasano
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin
An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Silencing The Victims In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: The Confrontation Clause And Children's Hearsay Statements Before And After Michigan V. Bryant, Deborah Paruch
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
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 …
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
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 …
Davis And Hammon: A Step Forward, Or A Step Back?, Tom Lininger
Davis And Hammon: A Step Forward, Or A Step Back?, Tom Lininger
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and lower court judges hoped that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the consolidated cases of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereafter simply Davis) would provide a primer on testimonial hearsay. In retrospect, these hopes were somewhat unrealistic. The Davis ruling could not possibly clear up all the confusion that followed Crawford v. Washington, the landmark 2004 case in which the Court strengthened the right of the accused to confront declarants of testimonial hearsay. In Davis, the Court focused on the facts under review and developed a taxonomy that will be useful in similar cases, but …
Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin
Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court’s consolidated ruling in United States v. Davis and United States v. Hammon is a classic of the genre of consensus opinions to which the Roberts Court aspired in its first, transitional term. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, contains practical accommodations unusual in a decision by the Court’s fiercest proponent of first principles. The restraint that characterized the term is, of course, more about considerations of logistics (including the desire to avoid re-arguments after the mid-term replacement of Justice O’Connor) than about the alignment of logic. Because it reflects temporary institutional constraints rather than intellectual agreement, the …
Davis/Hammon, Domestic Violence, And The Supreme Court: The Case For Cautious Optimism, Joan S. Meier
Davis/Hammon, Domestic Violence, And The Supreme Court: The Case For Cautious Optimism, Joan S. Meier
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court’s consolidated decision in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana offers something for everyone: by “splitting the difference” between the two cases—affirming one and reversing the other—the opinion provides much grist for advocates’ mills on both sides of this issue. While advocates for defendants’ rights are celebrating the opinion’s continued revitalization of the right to confrontation, which began in Crawford v. Washington, advocates for victims have cause for celebration as well: the decision is notable for its reflection of the Court’s growing—albeit incomplete— awareness and understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and their implications for justice. …