Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
2017 Symposium Discussion: The Life Of An Immigration Attorney, Cori Alonso-Yoder
2017 Symposium Discussion: The Life Of An Immigration Attorney, Cori Alonso-Yoder
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen
James L. Kainen
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Character Evidence, James L. Kainen
Burden Of Proof With Respect To The Defense Of Withdrawal From Conspiracy: United States V. Read, Alan S. Fox
Burden Of Proof With Respect To The Defense Of Withdrawal From Conspiracy: United States V. Read, Alan S. Fox
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Parent-Child Incest: Proof At Trial Without Testimony In Court By The Victim, Dustin P. Ordway
Parent-Child Incest: Proof At Trial Without Testimony In Court By The Victim, Dustin P. Ordway
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that the incest victim should not testify personally at trial. Rather, the child's testimony should be replaced with tape-recorded pretrial examinations of the victim by an expert, supplemented by the in-court testimony of the examining expert. Part I discusses how the present system of requiring in-court testimony by the victim harms the child, fails to correct the incest problem, and produces unreliable evidence. Part II outlines and discusses the merits of the proposed reform. Part ill examines the proposed reform in light of the defendant's constitutional rights to due process and to confront witnesses against him. The …
A Look At Florida's Proposed Code Of Evidence, Charles W. Ehrhardt
A Look At Florida's Proposed Code Of Evidence, Charles W. Ehrhardt
Scholarly Publications
The law of evidence had been codified in three states, California, New Jersey and Kansas, prior to the United States Supreme Court's promulgation of the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence. The submission of the rules to the Congress, and their approval, as amended, by the House of Representatives served as the catalyst for renewed interest in evidence codification. Three states have recently adopted comprehensive Rules of Evidence that closely parallel the Proposed Federal Rules, and at least four other states, including Florida, have drafted or are actively considering the adoption of such a codification. During the 1974 session of the …
Variations In Burden Of Proof In South Carolina, M. S. Whaley
Variations In Burden Of Proof In South Carolina, M. S. Whaley
South Carolina Law Review
No abstract provided.