Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (62)
- Evidence (45)
- Criminal Procedure (41)
- Criminal Law (31)
- Supreme Court of the United States (14)
-
- Courts (12)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Fourteenth Amendment (6)
- Juvenile Law (6)
- Law and Society (5)
- Legal History (5)
- State and Local Government Law (5)
- Family Law (4)
- Health Law and Policy (4)
- Science and Technology Law (4)
- Environmental Law (3)
- Fourth Amendment (3)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (3)
- Law and Gender (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Military, War, and Peace (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Judges (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Communications Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (26)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (24)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (6)
- St. Mary's University (3)
- University of Maine School of Law (3)
-
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- University of Miami Law School (2)
- University of South Carolina (2)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (24)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (10)
- Michigan Law Review (7)
- Indiana Law Journal (6)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
-
- Maine Law Review (3)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (3)
- American University Law Review (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (2)
- South Carolina Law Review (2)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- Barry Law Review (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Law Quadrangle (formerly Law Quad Notes) (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- Texas A&M Law Review (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Forum (1)
- University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class (1)
- University of Miami Law Review (1)
- University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review (1)
- University of Richmond Law Review (1)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 85
Full-Text Articles in Law
Machine Speech: Towards A Unified Doctrine Of Attribution And Control, Brian Sites
Machine Speech: Towards A Unified Doctrine Of Attribution And Control, Brian Sites
University of Miami Law Review
Like many courts across the country in 2023, courts in the Eleventh Circuit were met with novel claims challenging ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools. These cases raise common questions: How should courts treat the speech of machines? When a machine generates allegedly defamatory material, who is the speaker—mortal or machine? When a machine generates expressive creations, who is the artist, and does that shape copyright eligibility? When a machine makes assertions about reality through lab analyses and other forensic reports, who is the accuser, and how does the answer impact a defendant’s rights at trial? Should those answers stem …
Confrontation During Covid: A Fundamental Right, Virtually Guaranteed, Daniel Robinson
Confrontation During Covid: A Fundamental Right, Virtually Guaranteed, Daniel Robinson
University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review
The novel threats posed to our criminal justice system by the COVID-19 pandemic and attendant shutdowns of courts beg the question of whether our must fundamental pillars of law can withstand the ultimate test of time. And inherent in the ultimate test of time is the ultimate test of technology—this is, will there come a time that technology outgrows the confines of our legal landscape? Consider this: The United States Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to confront their accuser in court; yet, for a substantial period of time in 2020, court, as we knew it, was nothing more …
Confrontation’S Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Confrontation’S Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Texas A&M Law Review
The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment affords the “accused” in “criminal prosecutions” the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against” them. A particular challenge for courts over at least the last decade-plus has been the degree to which the Confrontation Clause applies to forensic reports, such as those presenting the results of a DNA, toxicology, or other CSI-type analysis. Should use of forensic reports entitle criminal defendants to confront purportedly “objective” analysts from the lab producing the report? If so, which analyst or analysts? For forensic processes that require multiple analysts, should the prosecution be required to produce …
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
How should the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment be interpreted as to machine witnesses? Courts across the country have resisted efforts to cross-examine the human agents who assist machines that generate data used in criminal trials. Such challenges under the Confrontation Clause have been rejected directly and in great number, and the rules of evidence are largely being read to not require the testimony of those who have the best information about the machine's use for the case at hand. This problem arises in an era of machine exceptionalism and widespread use. From increasingly sophisticated forensic lab tools to …
The Confrontation Clause: Employing The "Greatest Legal Engine Ever Invented For The Discovery Of Truth" To Promote Justice In Criminal Courts, Ani Oganesian
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Testimonial Statements, Reliability, And The Sole Or Decisive Evidence Rule: A Comparative Look At The Right Of Confrontation In The United States, Canada, And Europe, Deborah Paruch
Catholic University Law Review
Criminal trials in the United States are meant to ascertain the truth. But other societal values, such as fairness to the parties and public confidence in the integrity of the process, are at stake as well. Among the cornerstone rights to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial is the right to confrontation. The right to confrontation enables a criminal defendant to exclude hearsay evidence from a trial when the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This right has undergone substantial changes and revisions over the last decade, both in the United States and abroad. …
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
Maine Law Review
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to “confront witnesses against them.” Specifically, the Clause ensures a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses who testify against him by the unique medium, or “crucible,” of cross-examination. Although federal and state rules of evidence prohibiting hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar interests, whether or not admission of a piece of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a separate analysis than whether that same piece of evidence is admissible under a rule of evidence. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held …
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Maine Law Review
In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …
"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain
Maine Law Review
Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …
That's What She Said: An Evaluation Of Whether Hearsay Exceptions Should Be Permitted In Accusatory Instruments, Andrea Laterza
That's What She Said: An Evaluation Of Whether Hearsay Exceptions Should Be Permitted In Accusatory Instruments, Andrea Laterza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Michigan Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the …
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 …
Crawford V. Washington: Reclaiming The Original Meaning Of The Confrontation Clause, Danielle Dupre
Crawford V. Washington: Reclaiming The Original Meaning Of The Confrontation Clause, Danielle Dupre
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Cortes, Jennifer Feldman
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Cortes, Jennifer Feldman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Blew It: The Confrontation Clause & Breathalyzers As Testimonial Evidence, Stephanie Tuorto
You Blew It: The Confrontation Clause & Breathalyzers As Testimonial Evidence, Stephanie Tuorto
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Come Back To The Boat, Justice Breyer!, Richard D. Friedman
Come Back To The Boat, Justice Breyer!, Richard D. Friedman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
I want to get Justice Breyer back on the right side of Confrontation Clause issues. In 1999, in Lilly v. Virginia, he wrote a farsighted concurrence, making him one of the first members of the Supreme Court to recognize the inadequacy of the then-prevailing doctrine of the Confrontation Clause. That doctrine, first announced in Ohio v. Roberts, was dependent on hearsay law and made judicial assessments of reliability determinative. In Crawford v. Washington, the Court was presented with an alternative approach, making the key inquiry whether the statement in question was testimonial in nature. During the oral …
An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski
Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang
Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Nieves-Andino, Jason Gines
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Nieves-Andino, Jason Gines
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …
Confrontation And The Re-Privatization Of Domestic Violence, Deborah Tuerkheimer
Confrontation And The Re-Privatization Of Domestic Violence, Deborah Tuerkheimer
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
When the Supreme Court transformed the right of confrontation in Crawford v. Washington, the prosecution of domestic violence predictably suffered as a result. But commentators at the time did not anticipate how the Court’s subsequent Confrontation Clause cases would utterly misconceive the nature of domestic violence, producing a flawed understanding of what constitutes a “testimonial” statement. Although the Court’s definition was especially problematic in the domestic violence context, its overly rigid approach finally became intolerable in Michigan v. Bryant, a 2011 case that did not involve domestic violence. In Bryant, the Court resurrected a public–private divide that …
The Crawford Debacle, George Fisher
The Crawford Debacle, George Fisher
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
First a toast—to my colleague Jeff Fisher and his Crawford compatriot, Richard Friedman, on the tenth anniversary of their triumph: What they achieved in Crawford is every lawyer’s dream. By dint of sheer vision and lawyerly craft, they toppled what many saw as a flawed confrontation-law regime and put in its place one that promised greater justice. For that, much applause is due. Still there’s no denying their doctrine’s a muddle, if not as conceived, then as realized. Consider the count: Four justices almost agree on Crawford’s contours but patch over the issues that divide them. A fifth justice …