Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller
Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.
Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller
The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster - a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it …
Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller
Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
This essay focuses on the limits of deception practiced before the suspect waives his or her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In Miranda, the Court stated: [A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the suspect did not voluntarily waive his privilege. The quotation appears to forbid any evidence of threats, tricks, or cajolery, which contributes to a waiver of the privilege, creating a per se exclusion. However, in Moran v. Burbine (1986), the Court shifts focus away from the nature of the police conduct to its effect on …
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
Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court radically transformed the analysis of the Confrontation Clause for hearsay, but left many specific questions unanswered. Two years later in Davis v. Washington (2006), it revisited the subject and answered a few of the unresolved issues, but again left much in doubt, apparently reorienting the focus of the testimonial definition from that of the party making the statement to that of the person receiving it. One of the areas where the new doctrine has greatest potential importance is in cases involving children, particularly cases involving physical and sexual abuse. The importance derives …