Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (4)
- Hearsay (4)
- Witnesses (3)
- Confessions (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
-
- Custodial interrogations (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Probative value (2)
- Reliability (2)
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Selected Professional Activities (2)
- Testimony (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Bayesian probability (1)
- Carmichael (1)
- Children (1)
- Co-conspirator (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Criminal discovery (1)
- Cross-examiner (1)
- Daubert hearing (1)
- Daubert test (1)
- Death penalty appeal (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix
Mercer Law Review
In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Mercer Law Review
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include …
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Article, Professors Ceci and Friedman analyze psychological studies on children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a significant degree. Studies confirm that interviewers commonly use suggestive interviewing techniques that exacerbate this suggestibility, creating a significant risk in some forensic contexts-notably but not exclusively those of suspected child abuse-that children will make false assertions of fact. Professors Ceci and Friedman address the implications of this difficulty for the legal system and respond to Professor Lyon's criticism of this view recently articulated in the Cornell Law Review. Using Bayesian probability theory, Professors Ceci and …
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …
Roman And Canonical Roots Of Hearsay Doctrine, Frank Herrmann
Roman And Canonical Roots Of Hearsay Doctrine, Frank Herrmann
Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.
No abstract provided.
A Continental Rule Against Hearsay, Frank Herrmann
A Continental Rule Against Hearsay, Frank Herrmann
Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.
No abstract provided.