Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas
Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas
Dalhousie Law Journal
This paper examines the constitutionality of the Anton Piller order in Canadian law. First, the paper examines whether Anton Piller orders overall are unconstitutional through three major avenues of attack: (i) Charter challenges; (ii) the ultra vires doctrine; and (iii) the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. Afterwards, in the event that no challenge against Anton Piller orders broadly would succeed, the paper examines whether their uniquely Canadian variant known as a “rolling” or “John (or Jane) Doe” Anton Piller orders could be challenged, looking at both Charter and non-Charter challenges. Finally, this paper proposes the imposition of additional …
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Seattle University Law Review
This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.
We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …
Whether The Federal Rules Of Evidence Should Be Conceived As A Perpetual Index Code: Blindness Is Worse Than Myopia, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Whether The Federal Rules Of Evidence Should Be Conceived As A Perpetual Index Code: Blindness Is Worse Than Myopia, Edward J. Imwinkelried
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence Myopia: The Failure To See The Federal Rules Of Evidence As A Codification Of The Common Law, Glen Weissenberger
Evidence Myopia: The Failure To See The Federal Rules Of Evidence As A Codification Of The Common Law, Glen Weissenberger
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Elusive Identity Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Glen Weissenberger
The Elusive Identity Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Glen Weissenberger
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Foreword Evidence Symposium: A Comparative Study Of Federal And New York Evidence Practice, Honorable Frank X. Altimari
Foreword Evidence Symposium: A Comparative Study Of Federal And New York Evidence Practice, Honorable Frank X. Altimari
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Juveniles And Their Right To A Jury Trial, Timothy E. Foley
Juveniles And Their Right To A Jury Trial, Timothy E. Foley
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Justice Story On The Common Law Of Evidence, John C. Hogan
Justice Story On The Common Law Of Evidence, John C. Hogan
Vanderbilt Law Review
In our system of jurisprudence it is the province of the jury to decide all matters of fact. The trial is held and the verdict of the jury is delivered in the presence of a judge who is bound to decide matters of law which arise in the course of the trial. Whenever a thing offered as proof is questioned as not proper to go before the jury as evidence, that question is to be resolved by the judge, and unless he permits it to be introduced as evidence at the trial, it can not legally come to the consideration …