Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
St. Mary's Law Journal
Crawford v. Washington and its progeny demonstrate the difficulty of delineating both the core and the perimeter of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford abrogated Ohio v. Roberts, forcing trial lawyers to re-evaluate the use of various types of hearsay formerly admitted upon a finding of adequate “indicia of reliability.” Later the Court issued two decisions further altering the contours of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Michigan v. Bryant and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. With these options, the old Roberts “indicia of reliability” test transformed into the new “primary purpose” test to identify certain testimonial statements. By significantly altering the contours of Confrontation Clause …
Toward Permissive Appeal In Texas., Renee Forinash Mcelhaney
Toward Permissive Appeal In Texas., Renee Forinash Mcelhaney
St. Mary's Law Journal
A comparison of April Marketing & Distributing Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. (“April Marketing”), which pended in federal court, and Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District (“Barshop”), which pended in state court, illustrates the value of permissive appeal. Both cases had many early procedural similarities. Yet, the cases differ because the federal court allowed for a permissive appeal; the state court did not. The two cases later diverged procedurally, when the federal case was able to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory order denying motion for summary judgment. Lacking this option, the state case was forced …
Standards Of Review In Texas., W. Wendell Hall
Standards Of Review In Texas., W. Wendell Hall
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Article presents a substantial and comprehensive update of the standards of review applied by Texas appellate courts. It focuses on appellate standards for reviewing trial court rulings on pretrial, trial, and posttrial proceedings. Standards of review distribute power within the judicial branch by defining the relationship between trial and appellate courts. These standards “frame the issues, define the depth of review, assign power among judicial actors, and declare the proper materials to review.” Sometimes a trial court’s errors are so egregious and harmful that reversing the trial court is relatively simple. When the trial court’s error is only marginal …