Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …
State V. Roberts: A Persuasive But Unsupported Position, Robert A. Boyd
State V. Roberts: A Persuasive But Unsupported Position, Robert A. Boyd
Cleveland State Law Review
The Ohio Supreme Court recently held in State v. Roberts that when a witness is unavailable at the trial of a criminal defendant, the state may not introduce the witness' preliminary hearing testimony into evidence unless he had been cross-examined at the preliminary hearing. The court found that the defendant, Roberts, had been denied his right to confront an adverse witness when the trial court admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who was not present at trial, and held that mere opportunity to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing, unexercised, did not satisfy the demands of the Confrontation Clause …