Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (117)
- Evidence (110)
- Criminal Procedure (97)
- Criminal Law (53)
- Supreme Court of the United States (48)
-
- Courts (45)
- Jurisprudence (15)
- Juvenile Law (10)
- Legal History (9)
- Judges (8)
- Fourteenth Amendment (7)
- Litigation (7)
- Science and Technology Law (6)
- State and Local Government Law (6)
- Common Law (5)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (5)
- Law and Society (5)
- Family Law (4)
- Fourth Amendment (4)
- Health Law and Policy (4)
- Law and Gender (4)
- Military, War, and Peace (4)
- Environmental Law (3)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Conflict of Laws (2)
- International Law (2)
- Law and Philosophy (2)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (63)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (24)
- SelectedWorks (10)
- Selected Works (9)
- Georgetown University Law Center (7)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (6)
- University of Richmond (4)
- University of South Carolina (4)
- St. Mary's University (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- University of Maine School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Barry University School of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- Cornell University Law School (2)
- Fordham Law School (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- Southern Methodist University (2)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (2)
- University of Tennessee College of Law (2)
- University of Washington School of Law (2)
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- California Western School of Law (1)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (36)
- Touro Law Review (24)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (10)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (7)
- Michigan Law Review (7)
-
- Faculty Publications (6)
- Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Indiana Law Journal (6)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
- All Faculty Scholarship (4)
- Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Maine Law Review (3)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (3)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (3)
- American University Law Review (2)
- Articles & Chapters (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (2)
- Other Publications (2)
- Publications (2)
- South Carolina Law Review (2)
- Thomas D. Lyon (2)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- Barry Law Review (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Brendan T Beery (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 187
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin L. Sheley
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin L. Sheley
Faculty Scholarship
For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …
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 …
Criminal Justice Secrets, Meghan J. Ryan
Criminal Justice Secrets, Meghan J. Ryan
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The American criminal justice system is cloaked in secrecy. The government employs covert surveillance operations. Grand-jury proceedings are hidden from public view. Prosecutors engage in closed-door plea-bargaining and bury exculpatory evidence. Juries convict defendants on secret evidence. Jury deliberations are a black box. And jails and prisons implement clandestine punishment practices. Although there are some justifications for this secrecy, the ubiquitous nature of it is contrary to this nation’s Founders’ steadfast belief in the transparency of criminal justice proceedings. Further, the pervasiveness of secrecy within today’s criminal justice system raises serious constitutional concerns. The accumulation of secrecy and the aggregation …
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 …
Confrontation's Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Confrontation's Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
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 …
Confrontation In The Age Of Plea Bargaining [Comments], William Ortman
Confrontation In The Age Of Plea Bargaining [Comments], William Ortman
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment grants “the accused” in “all criminal prosecutions” a right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” A particular problem occurs when there is a gap in time between the testimony that is offered, and the cross-examination of it, as where, pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption, evidence of a current witness’s prior statement is offered and for some intervening reason her current memory is impaired. Does this fatally affect the opportunity to “confront” the witness? The Supreme Court has, to date, left unclear the extent to which a memory-impaired witness can …
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 …
Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham
Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) when the government relies on the forfeiture exception of the Confrontation Clause to introduce a witness’s out-of-court statements, the burden of proof the litigant must meet is that of preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel and thereby violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court holds a Young hearing for each motion and enough evidence indicates there is not a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.
The Confrontation Clause And Co-Defendant Confessions: The Drift From Bruton To Parker V. Randolph, Paul Marcus
The Confrontation Clause And Co-Defendant Confessions: The Drift From Bruton To Parker V. Randolph, Paul Marcus
Paul Marcus
No abstract provided.
A Game Of Katso And Mouse: Current Theories For Getting Forensic Analysis Evidence Past The Confrontation Clause, Ronald J. Coleman, Paul F. Rothstein
A Game Of Katso And Mouse: Current Theories For Getting Forensic Analysis Evidence Past The Confrontation Clause, Ronald J. Coleman, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause ensures that an “accused” in a “criminal prosecution[]” has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him [.]” Although perhaps a simple concept, defining the scope of confrontation rights has proved extremely difficult. The law has had particular difficulty scoping confrontation rights in forensic analysis cases, such as those where the prosecution seeks to utilize a laboratory report of DNA, blood alcohol content, narcotics, or other “CSI” type analysis. In this connection, Justice Gorsuch recently authored an opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari in Stuart v. Alabama, in which he recognized the …
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. …
State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire
State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a preliminary hearing, and then the defendant waives his right to that preliminary hearing, the defendant is said to have had an “adequate opportunity” to confront that witness as long as adequate discovery was available.
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.
Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee
Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined that (1) the district court may constitutionally remove a criminal defendant from the courtroom for disrupting courtroom procedure, (2) a defendant does not have the right to appear at trial in shackles, (3) testimony about a detective’s investigation leading to the defendant’s arrest is not opinion about the defendant’s guilt, (4) the district court may decide not to instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense if no evidence on the record establishes an element of that offense, and (5) a specific cause of death is not required to find that a person’s death was caused by criminal …
"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 …
Confronting Crawford: Justice Scalia, The Judicial Method, And The Limits(?) Of Originalism, Gary S. Lawson
Confronting Crawford: Justice Scalia, The Judicial Method, And The Limits(?) Of Originalism, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington, which revamped (and even revolutionized) interpretation and application of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, just might be Justice Scalia’s most important majority opinion, for three reasons. First, its impact on the criminal justice system has been immense, and even if the case is overruled in the near future, as seems quite possible, that effect will still likely exceed the concrete impact of any other opinion that he wrote. Second, and more importantly, Crawford emphasizes the trite but crucial point that methodology matters. Crawford has generally been a boon to criminal defendants and a bane to prosecutors. When …
An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
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.
Good Ole Rocky Top: Rocky Top Tennessee, Brian Krumm
Good Ole Rocky Top: Rocky Top Tennessee, Brian Krumm
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Far too many reporters and pundits collapse law into politics, assuming that the left–right divide between Democratic and Republican appointees neatly explains politically liberal versus politically conservative outcomes at the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia defied such caricatures. His consistent judicial philosophy made him the leading exponent of originalism, textualism, and formalism in American law, and over the course of his three decades on the Court, he changed the terms of judicial debate. Now, as a result, supporters and critics alike start with the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text rather than loose appeals to legislative …
Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Some years before his death, when asked which was his favorite among his opinions, Antonin Scalia named Crawford v. Washington. It was a good choice. Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford reclaimed the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and restored it to its rightful place as one of the central protections of our criminal justice system. He must have found it particularly satisfying that the opinion achieved this result by focusing on the historical meaning of the text, and that it gained the concurrence of all but two members of the Court, from all ideological positions.
Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin
David Kaye
In Crawford v Washington, the Supreme Court substantially changed its understanding of how the Confrontation Clause applies to hearsay evidence. Since then, the Court has issued three bitterly contested expert-evidence-related Confrontation Clause decisions, and each one has generated at least as many questions as answers. This article analyzes this trilogy of cases, especially the most recent, Williams v Illinois.
In Williams, the Court issued a bewildering array of opinions in which majority support for admitting the opinion of a DNA analyst about tests that she did not perform was awkwardly knitted together out of several incompatible doctrinal …
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 …
Good Ole Rocky Top: Rocky Top Tennessee, Brian Krumm, Liz Natal
Good Ole Rocky Top: Rocky Top Tennessee, Brian Krumm, Liz Natal
College of Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
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
Thomas D. Lyon
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.
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.