Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
Articles 31 - 40 of 40
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interaction Between State And Federal Right To Counsel: The Overruling Of Bartolomeounsel: The Overruling Of Bartolomeo, Joseph D. Sullivan
Interaction Between State And Federal Right To Counsel: The Overruling Of Bartolomeounsel: The Overruling Of Bartolomeo, Joseph D. Sullivan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Noseworthy Doctrine: A Threepart Rule For Its Application, Steven D. Jannace
The Noseworthy Doctrine: A Threepart Rule For Its Application, Steven D. Jannace
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
St. Mary's Law Journal
Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …
Parent-Child Privilege: Constitutional Right Or Specious Analogy?, Donald Cofer
Parent-Child Privilege: Constitutional Right Or Specious Analogy?, Donald Cofer
Seattle University Law Review
To avoid reaching incorrect verdicts as a result of insufficient evidence, courts generally require witnesses to testify to all relevant facts within their knowledge. Two important exceptions to this general rule, incompetency and privilege, rest on very different rationales. Developed at common law to exclude unreliable evidence, rules of competency disqualify certain untrustworthy witnesses from testifying. To promote extrinsic public policies, however, privileges excuse competent witnesses from providing what may be highly probative and reliable evidence. In the past decade there have been calls for legislative or judicial recognition of a parent-child privilege, similar to the marital privilege, that would …
Hardin And Medvid: A Change In Indiana's Entrapment Law, Michael Hyatte
Hardin And Medvid: A Change In Indiana's Entrapment Law, Michael Hyatte
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.