Law Commons^™

Unraveling Williams V. Illinois, Edward K. Cheng, Cara C. Mannion

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Essay addresses one of the key evidentiary problems facing courts today: the treatment of forensic reports under the Confrontation Clause. Forensics are a staple of modern criminal trials, yet what restrictions the Confrontation Clause places on forensic reports is entirely unclear. The Supreme Court’s latest decision on the issue, Williams v. Illinois, sowed widespread confusion among lower courts and commentators, and during the 2018 Term, Justices Gorsuch and Kagan dissented to the denial of certiorari in Stuart v. Alabama, a case that would have revisited (and hopefully clarified) Williams.

Our Essay dispels the confusion in Williams v. Illinois. …

Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond

Maine Law Review

In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …

Criminal Law—When The Pillow Talks: Arkansas's Rape Shield Statute Bars Dna Evidence Excluding The Defendant As The Source Of Semen. Thacker V. State, 2015 Ark. 406, 474 S.W.3d 65., Lacon Marie Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause (2017), Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This material is a part of a lecture delivered at the Maryland Judicial Center on May 11, 2017. It is an update of previous versions available at the following locations:

2016: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/955/

2012: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/

The material is a series of flowcharts that explain the nuances of hearsay law and the confrontation clause under Maryland law.

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .

Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to section numbers of L. MCLAIN, …

Lilly V. Virginia: Silencing The "Firmly Rooted" Hearsay Exception With Regard To An Accomplice's Testimony And Its Rejuvenation Of The Confrontation Clause, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the impact on the confrontation clause of introducing an accomplice's custodial statements which inculpate a defendant. Part II delves into the background of this issue by examining the confrontation clause's origin, the significance of hearsay with respect to the confrontation clause, and important cases in this area. Part III provides a statement of the facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lilly. Finally, Part IV analyzes the Lilly decision and its rejuvenation of the confrontation clause.

Dna Analysis And The Confrontation Clause: “Special Needs” Category For Dna Testimonial Evidence, Colleen Clark

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment examines three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with forensic evidence and how its use is affected by the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause provides a defendant with the right to confront adverse witnesses. Notably, in Williams v. Illinois, Justice Breyer pointed out that the Court has explicitly not addressed the “outer limits of the “testimonial statements” rule set forth in Crawford v. Washington.” Specifically, Justice Breyer asked how “the Confrontation Clause [applies] to the panoply of crime laboratory reports and underlying technical statements written by (or otherwise made by) laboratory technicians?” This question, while left …

Conflicting Confrontation Clause Concerns: The Admissibility Of Hospital Records Versus A Defendant's Right To Confrontation, Susan Barlow

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Field Test Results At Trial To Prove Intoxication, Vincent J. Costa

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Visual Jurisprudence, Richard Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

Lawyers, judges, and jurors face a vast array of visual evidence and visual argument inside the contemporary courtroom. From videos documenting crimes and accidents to computer displays of their digital simulation, increasingly, the search for fact-based justice is becoming an offshoot of visual meaning making. But when law migrates to the screen it lives there as other images do, motivating belief and judgment on the basis of visual delight and unconscious fantasies and desires as well as actualities. Law as image also shares broader cultural anxieties concerning not only the truth of the image, but also the mimetic capacity itself, …

Reconsidering Spousal Privileges After Crawford, R. Michael Cassidy

R. Michael Cassidy

In this article the author explores how domestic violence prevention efforts have been adversely impacted by the Supreme Court’s new “testimonial” approach to the confrontation clause. Examining the Court’s trilogy of cases from Crawford to Davis and Hammon, the author argues that the introduction of certain forms of hearsay in criminal cases has been drastically limited by the court’s new originalist approach to the Sixth Amendment. The author explains how state spousal privilege statutes often present a significant barrier to obtaining live testimony from victims of domestic violence. The author then argues that state legislatures should reconsider their spousal privilege …

A Defense Attorney’S Guide To Confrontation After Michigan V. Bryant, Kathryn K. Polonsky

Kathryn K Polonsky

In 1603, the Crown charged Sir Walter Raleigh with high treason in part for plotting to murder King James I. In preparing for trial, Lord Cobham, Raleigh’s alleged co-conspirator, was interrogated and signed a sworn confession. During trial, the King used the Crown-procured ex parte testimony of Cobham against Raleigh. Raleigh demanded Cobham be brought before the court so Raleigh might interrogate him “face to face.” Raleigh was sure Cobham would prove his innocence. After all, Cobham had written a letter stating his charges against Raleigh contained no truth.

The Judges refused to allow Raleigh the use of Cobham’s exonerating …

Another "Straightforward Application": The Impact Of Melendez-Diaz On Forensic Testing And Expert Testimony In Controlled Substance Cases, John Wait

Campbell Law Review

Part I of this Article will analyze Melendez-Diaz with a focus on extracting indicators within the opinion that lend guidance as to how the opinion could be extended to Bullcoming and to expert testimony based on forensic reports in controlled substance cases. Part II will provide an overview of the tests utilized by the SBI to determine the nature and quantity, if any, of suspected controlled substances with the goal of ascertaining who, under Melendez-Diaz, should be subject to confrontation. Part III will provide a prediction of the outcome in Bullcoming. Finally, Part IV will review the pending cases from …

The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.

In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many appellate cases those that have the most significant precedential value. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes tothe law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in the areas ofcriminal law and procedure.

Testimonial Statements, Excited Utterances And The Confrontation Clause: Formulating A Precise Rule After Crawford And Davis, Gary M. Bishop

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article will analyze whether the post-Crawford decisions have been consistent in their treatment of statements that qualify as excited utterances in light of the Confrontation Clause principles and various definitions of testimonial in Crawford. Part II of this Article will provide a discussion of the Crawford decision itself and an analysis of Crawford's treatment of earlier cases in this area. Part III of this Article will provide a discussion and analysis of court decisions that have applied Crawford in the context of excited utterances. It will do this by examining the factors that these courts have considered and emphasized …

Forfeiture By Wrongdoing And Those Who Acquiesce In Witness Intimidation: A Reach Exceeding Its Grasp And Other Problems With Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6), James F. Flanagan

Faculty Publications

This article is the first comprehensive and critical analysis of the new exception to the hearsay rule that permits prosecutors to admit hearsay statements of absent witnesses when the defendant causes their unavailability at trial. The article develops the problems with the rule's overbroad language, its potential to admit unreliable hearsay and its relationship to the Confrontation Clause. These issues are of increasing interest to lawyers, judges and justices now that it is a federal rule and been adopted by ten states.

The first section is a comprehensive statement of the rule as now applied. The exception is traced from …

Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Statements Against Interest, Reliability, And The Confrontation Clause, John J. Capowski

John J. Capowski

No abstract provided.

Trances, Trials, And Tribulations, Gary M. Shaw

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparison Of The Federal And New York State Rape Shield Statutes, Deborah Stavile Bartel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation And Hearsay: New Wine In An Old Bottle, The Honorable Anthony M. Brannon

Campbell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Admissibility Of Hearsay Under The Confrontation Clause: Reliability Requirement For Hearsay Admitted Under A Non-"Firmly Rooted" Exception - Idaho V. Wright, A. Perry Wadsworth Jr.

Campbell Law Review

This note discusses the facts of Idaho v. Wright, examines the history of the admissibility of hearsay under the Confrontation Clause, and analyzes the Wright decision. This note concludes that by excluding the use of corroborative evidence in determining the trustworthiness of non-firmly rooted hearsay, the Court enhances Confrontation Clause protection for criminal defendants, but perhaps at the expense of some crime victims, such as sexually abused children.

Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Question Of Necessity: The Conflict Between A Defendant's Right Of Confrontation And A State's Use Of Closed Circuit Television In Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.