Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Confrontation clause (2)
- Admissibility of evidence (1)
- American jury system (1)
- Bill of rights (1)
- Civil juries (1)
-
- Coerced confessions (1)
- Confession (1)
- Criminal juries (1)
- Diversity in juries (1)
- Due process (1)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1)
- Federal criminal cases (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Hearsay rule (1)
- Inadmissible evidence (1)
- Juries (1)
- McNabb v. United States (1)
- Miranda rights (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Overbearing the will (1)
- Police interrogation (1)
- Right to compulsory process (1)
- Self-incrimination clause (1)
- Treason clause (1)
- Twelve-person unanimous jury (1)
- Unanimity in civil juries (1)
- Voluntariness (1)
- Witnesses (1)
- Witnesses in favor (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen
Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen
Book Chapters
The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …
Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen
Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen
Book Chapters
The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.
Police Interrogation And Confessions, Yale Kamisar
Police Interrogation And Confessions, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
In the police interrogation room, where, until the second third of the century, police practices were unscrutinized and virtually unregulated, constitutional ideals collide with the grim realities of law enforcement.
The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, James Boyd White
The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, James Boyd White
Book Chapters
After the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) established a uniform set of procedures for the trial of civil cases in federal courts, Congress authorized the supreme court to make rules for the trial of federal criminal cases as well. With two Justices dissenting, the Supreme Court adopted the rules in 1944 and submitted them to Congress, which, by silence, approved them.
The Twelve-Person, Unanimous Jury: Does It Have More Than History To Recommend It?, Richard O. Lempert
The Twelve-Person, Unanimous Jury: Does It Have More Than History To Recommend It?, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
My focus today will be on the twelve-person unanimous jury and on the contrasts between such juries and six-person juries or twelve-person juries than can return verdicts by ten-two or nine-three votes. Until about fifteen years ago, it appeared that the sixth and seventh amendments required all federal juries to have twelve members who reached unanimous verdicts, and it appeared possible that the Supreme Court would force the states to conform to the federal standards. Instead, the court did almost the opposite. It sanctioned juries as small as size six in state criminal cases and federal civil cases, and it …