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 31 - 60 of 85
Full-Text Articles in Law
Crawford V. Washington: The Next Ten Years, Jeffrey L. Fisher
Crawford V. Washington: The Next Ten Years, Jeffrey L. Fisher
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Imagine a world . . . in which the Supreme Court got it right the first time. That is, imagine that when the Supreme Court first incorporated the Confrontation Clause against the states, the Court did so by way of the testimonial approach. It’s not that hard to envision. In Douglas v. Alabama—issued in 1965, on the same day the Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause applies to the states—the Court held that a nontestifying witness’s custodial confession could not be introduced against the defendant because, while “not technically testimony,” the confession was “the equivalent in the jury’s mind …
Gender-Conscious Confrontation: The Accuser-Obligation Approach Revisited, Michael El-Zein
Gender-Conscious Confrontation: The Accuser-Obligation Approach Revisited, Michael El-Zein
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
The Supreme Court’s recent Confrontation Clause decisions have had a dramatic effect on domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States, sparking debate about possible solutions to an increasingly difficult trial process for prosecutors and the survivors they represent. In this Note, I revisit and reinterpret the suggestion by Professor Sherman J. Clark in his article, An Accuser-Obligation Approach to the Confrontation Clause,1 that we should view the Confrontation Clause primarily as an obligation of the accuser rather than a right of the accused. Specifically, I reevaluate Clark’s proposition using a gendered lens, ultimately suggesting a novel solution to the problem …
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …
Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2007 Term, Susan N. Herman
Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2007 Term, Susan N. Herman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Leon, Madeline Katz, Madeline Klotz
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Leon, Madeline Katz, Madeline Klotz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, First Department - People V. Williams, Brian E. Peterson
Appellate Division, First Department - People V. Williams, Brian E. Peterson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Decline Of The Confrontation Clause In New York - People V. Encarnacion, Anthony Fasano
The Decline Of The Confrontation Clause In New York - People V. Encarnacion, Anthony Fasano
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin
An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Silencing The Victims In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: The Confrontation Clause And Children's Hearsay Statements Before And After Michigan V. Bryant, Deborah Paruch
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confrontation And Domestic Violence Post-Davis: Is There And Should There Be A Doctrinal Exception, Eleanor Simon
Confrontation And Domestic Violence Post-Davis: Is There And Should There Be A Doctrinal Exception, Eleanor Simon
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
Close to five million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against women in the United States annually. Domestic violence accounts for twenty percent of all non-fatal crime experienced by women in this county. Despite these statistics, many have argued that in the past six years the Supreme Court has "put a target on [the] back" of the domestic violence victim, has "significantly eroded offender accountability in domestic violence prosecutions," and has directly instigated a substantial decline in domestic violence prosecutions. The asserted cause is the Court's complete and groundbreaking re-conceptualization of the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal …
Another Can Of "Crawford" Worms: Certificates Of Nonexistence Of Public Record And The Confrontation Clause, Keith Hollingshead-Cook
Another Can Of "Crawford" Worms: Certificates Of Nonexistence Of Public Record And The Confrontation Clause, Keith Hollingshead-Cook
Vanderbilt Law Review
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right .. . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."' When the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington in 2004, it established a new standard for assessing the scope of this right and determining when hearsay is admissible as trial evidence against a criminal defendant. Rather than basing decisions regarding a defendant's right to confrontation on a judicial inquiry into the reliability of a particular statement, an approach typified by the Court's earlier decision of Ohio v. …
Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts: The Future Of The Confrontation Clause, Joseph Henn
Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts: The Future Of The Confrontation Clause, Joseph Henn
Barry Law Review
The purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities’ decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, this article will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided. Second, this article explores the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington is inherently flawed. This article will further discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led …
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: "A Little Child Shall Lead Them", Robert P. Mosteller
Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: "A Little Child Shall Lead Them", Robert P. Mosteller
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Davis And Hammon: A Step Forward, Or A Step Back?, Tom Lininger
Davis And Hammon: A Step Forward, Or A Step Back?, Tom Lininger
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and lower court judges hoped that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the consolidated cases of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereafter simply Davis) would provide a primer on testimonial hearsay. In retrospect, these hopes were somewhat unrealistic. The Davis ruling could not possibly clear up all the confusion that followed Crawford v. Washington, the landmark 2004 case in which the Court strengthened the right of the accused to confront declarants of testimonial hearsay. In Davis, the Court focused on the facts under review and developed a taxonomy that will be useful in similar cases, but …
Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin
Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court’s consolidated ruling in United States v. Davis and United States v. Hammon is a classic of the genre of consensus opinions to which the Roberts Court aspired in its first, transitional term. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, contains practical accommodations unusual in a decision by the Court’s fiercest proponent of first principles. The restraint that characterized the term is, of course, more about considerations of logistics (including the desire to avoid re-arguments after the mid-term replacement of Justice O’Connor) than about the alignment of logic. Because it reflects temporary institutional constraints rather than intellectual agreement, the …
Davis/Hammon, Domestic Violence, And The Supreme Court: The Case For Cautious Optimism, Joan S. Meier
Davis/Hammon, Domestic Violence, And The Supreme Court: The Case For Cautious Optimism, Joan S. Meier
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court’s consolidated decision in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana offers something for everyone: by “splitting the difference” between the two cases—affirming one and reversing the other—the opinion provides much grist for advocates’ mills on both sides of this issue. While advocates for defendants’ rights are celebrating the opinion’s continued revitalization of the right to confrontation, which began in Crawford v. Washington, advocates for victims have cause for celebration as well: the decision is notable for its reflection of the Court’s growing—albeit incomplete— awareness and understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and their implications for justice. …
Still "Left In The Dark": The Confrontation Clause And Child Abuse Cases After Davis V. Washington, Anthony J. Franze, Jacob E. Smiles
Still "Left In The Dark": The Confrontation Clause And Child Abuse Cases After Davis V. Washington, Anthony J. Franze, Jacob E. Smiles
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In his concurring opinion in Crawford v. Washington, Chief Justice Rehnquist criticized the majority for holding that the Confrontation Clause applies to “testimonial” statements but leaving for “another day” any effort to define sufficiently what “testimonial” means. Prosecutors and defendants, he said, “should not be left in the dark in this manner.” Over the next two years, both sides grappled with the meaning of testimonial, each gleaning import from sections of Crawford that seemingly proved their test was the right one. When the Court granted certiorari in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereinafter Davis), hopes were high that …
Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana: Beating Expectations, Robert P. Mosteller
Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana: Beating Expectations, Robert P. Mosteller
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
I begin with a question of effectiveness: does the new Confrontation Clause doctrine effectively protect defendants with respect to the most im-portant types of problematic out-of-court statements? Although they leave much room for the introduction of hearsay in the immediate aftermath of crime generally, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (together hereinafter Davis) are better opinions from that broad perspective than I had feared. The new doctrine now covers and provides substantial procedural protection for a very important class of problematic hearsay—statements made to government agents investigating past crime.
Refining Crawford: The Confrontation Claus After Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana, Andrew C. Fine
Refining Crawford: The Confrontation Claus After Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana, Andrew C. Fine
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Clarification of the Supreme Court’s newly minted interpretation of the Confrontation Clause was desperately needed, and Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana promised to provide it. Two terms earlier, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court had worked a revolutionary transformation of Confrontation Clause analysis by overruling Ohio v. Roberts and severing the link between hearsay jurisprudence and the Clause. Crawford was hailed by the criminal defense bar, since it seemed to presage a sharp reduction in the frequency of so-called “victimless” trials by holding that “testimonial” hearsay, no matter how reliable, was constitutionally inadmissible in the absence of …
Procuring The Right To An Unfair Trial: Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6) And The Due Process Implications Of The Rule's Failure To Require Standards Of Reliability For Admissible Evidence, Kelly Rutan
American University Law Review
This Comment argues that though the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing allows a court to forfeit both a defendant’s right to object to the admission of hearsay statements and the right of confrontation, the current state of the law requires all out-of-court statements admitted under Rule 804(b)(6) to possess some level of reliability in order to satisfy due process. Part I of this Comment discusses the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the courts’ treatment of this principle prior to 1997, and its codification into the Federal Rules of Evidence. Part II looks at Confrontation Clause issues unique to hearsay exceptions …
Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller
Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crawford V. Washington: The Admissibility Of Statements To Physicians And The Use Of Closed-Circuit Television In Cases Of Child Sexual Abuse, Jon Simon Stefanuca
Crawford V. Washington: The Admissibility Of Statements To Physicians And The Use Of Closed-Circuit Television In Cases Of Child Sexual Abuse, Jon Simon Stefanuca
University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class
No abstract provided.