Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Idaho V. Wright: Who Can Speak For The Children Now?, Laura Barker
Idaho V. Wright: Who Can Speak For The Children Now?, Laura Barker
Akron Law Review
This note discusses how the Court reached the decision in Idaho v. Wright to exclude the hearsay testimony of a child abuse victim. The note examines the Court's reasoning and the effects which the exclusion of hearsay testimony of child abuse victims may have on future prosecutions. The note concludes that the Court's decision is likely to add chaos into the already difficult and complex arena of child abuse prosecution.
Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Young, Randy S. Pearlman
Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Young, Randy S. Pearlman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …
Confronting Legal And Technological Incongruity: Remote Testimony For Child Witnesses, Elizabeth A. Mulkey
Confronting Legal And Technological Incongruity: Remote Testimony For Child Witnesses, Elizabeth A. Mulkey
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
Child victims are often the only eyewitnesses in cases against their abusers. A child's testimony may be necessary for a prosecutor to secure a conviction. However, the child must often face his or her abuser and relive the traumatic experience while giving this testimony. Any accommodations or protection of a child witness at trial must be balanced against the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. Craig allows child victims to testify via one-way, closed-circuit television in some circumstances, but the Court has not addressed two-way, closed-circuit testimony or remote testimony. In the absence …