Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (4)
- Confrontation Clause (4)
- Crawford v. Washington (4)
- Cross-examination (4)
- Ohio v. Roberts (4)
-
- Sixth Amendment (4)
- Testimonial (4)
- Testimony (4)
- Exclusions (3)
- Hearsay (3)
- Reliability (3)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Witnesses (3)
- History (2)
- Adversary system (1)
- England (1)
- Epistemology (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Gatekeeping (1)
- General warrants (1)
- Intradisciplinarity (1)
- James Otis (1)
- Monitoring (1)
- Police (1)
- Probative value (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Protecting The Citizen Whilst He Is Quiet: Suspicionless Searches, Special Needs And General Warrants, Scott E. Sundby
Protecting The Citizen Whilst He Is Quiet: Suspicionless Searches, Special Needs And General Warrants, Scott E. Sundby
Articles
No abstract provided.
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court radically transformed its doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Craitiord is a very positive development, restoring to its central position one of the basic protections of the common law system of criminal justice. But the decision leaves many open questions, and all lawyers involved in the criminal justice process will have to adjust to the new regime that it creates. This article outlines and summarizes the problems with the law as it stood before Crait/brd. It then explains the theoretical …
De Novo Review In Deferential Robes?: A Deconstruction Of The Standard Of Review Of Evidentiary Errors In The Federal System, Peter Nicolas
De Novo Review In Deferential Robes?: A Deconstruction Of The Standard Of Review Of Evidentiary Errors In The Federal System, Peter Nicolas
Articles
Although the labels have changed, the name of the appellate game is still the same. For any given type of error in admitting or excluding evidence, one needs to determine whether review is discretionary or deferential. The purpose of this Article is to parse each of the rules of evidence to determine which types of claimed errors are entitled to de novo review, which are entitled to clear error review, and which are entitled to traditional abuse of discretion review. By "type" of error, this Article does not mean to refer to such large categories as "hearsay," "best evidence," "relevance," …
Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, And The American Way, Susan Haack
Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, And The American Way, Susan Haack
Articles
No abstract provided.
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception. This article argues that this framework should be abandoned. The clause should not be regarded …
The Crawford Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
The Crawford Transformation, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), is one of the most dramatic Evidence cases in recent history, radically transforming the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Crawford is a very positive development, but leaves many open questions - and forces Evidence teachers to rethink how they teach hearsay and confrontation.
Gatekeeping, Peter B. Oh
Gatekeeping, Peter B. Oh
Articles
Gatekeeping is a metaphor ubiquitous across disciplines and within fields of law. Generally, gatekeeping comprises an actor monitoring the quality of information, products, or services. Specific conceptions of gatekeeping functions have arisen independently within corporate and evidentiary law. Corporate gatekeeping entails deciding whether to grant or withhold support necessary for financial disclosure; evidentiary gatekeeping entails assessing whether expert knowledge is relevant and reliable for admissibility. This article is the first to identify substantive parallels between gatekeeping in these two contexts and to suggest their cross-treatment. Public corporate gatekeepers, like their judicial evidentiary analogues, should bear a duty of reliable monitoring.
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
Articles
The important questions we need to ask and to answer in the perilous times in which we live is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that respects our …