Law Commons^™

“Bull” Coming From The States: Why The U.S. Supreme Court Should Use Williams V. Illinois To Close One Of Bullcoming’S Confrontation Clause Loopholes, Tara Klimek Price

Tara Price

Imagine that you are selected as a juror in a trial where the defendant is accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol. You listen to the police officer who testifies that he observed the defendant and believed him to be intoxicated. You hear about how after obtaining a warrant, the officer took the defendant to the emergency room for a blood-alcohol test. The police officer finishes his testimony, and the next witness will testify about the results of the defendant’s blood-alcohol test.

But before the witness can testify, defense counsel objects. Apparently, this is not the laboratory analyst …

Fourth, Fifth And Sixth Amendment Considerations For Admissibility Of Defendants’ Admissions And Confessions, Nancy Haydt

Nancy Haydt

Over the past three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered opinions that have great impact on the admissibility of a criminal defendant's statement which constitutes an admission under FRE Rule 801(d)(2). This paper addresses recent High Court rulings implicating Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure rights, Fifth Amendment Rights to silence and to counsel, and Sixth Amendment Right to non-interference with trial counsel in the context of admissions and confessions, and discusses the profound effect these rulings have in Criminal Procedure.

Missouri's Ring Tone: Jury Sentencing Rights In Death Penalty Cases, Jacqueline M. Whipple

Jacqueline M. Whipple

This Law Summary concerns recent developments in criminal law and the death penalty. It includes the national and state-specific legal background behind criminal defendants' rights regarding jury sentencing, and the latest interpretation and application of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Ring v. Arizona by the Missouri Supreme Court.