Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Attenuated circumstances (1)
- Black lives matter (1)
- Earl Warren (1)
- Eric Garner (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
-
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Good faith (1)
- Identification procedures (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Individual liberties (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Institutional culture (1)
- Justice Warren (1)
- Law enforcement (1)
- Miranda (1)
- Police misconduct (1)
- Powers v. Ohio (1)
- Prior conviction impeachment; evidence; Federal Rules of Evidence; FRE 609; character for truthfulness; prosecution witness; crimina falsi; qualifying felony convictions; abolition; criminal system reform; criminal law; criminal justice system; criminal legal system (1)
- Sandra Bland (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Standing doctrine (1)
- Tamir Rice (1)
- Third-party standing (1)
- Victims’ Rights; Victimology; Criminal Procedure; Criminal Law; Evidence; Restorative Justice; Law and Psychology; Judicial Decision-Making; Jury Decision-Making; criminal law; criminal justice system; criminal legal system (1)
- Walter Scott (1)
- Warren Court (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
Brooklyn Law Review
In Payne v. Tennessee, the US Supreme Court upheld the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) on the ground that they provide valuable information to the sentencer. In the three decades since, two additional rationales for VIS have become ascendant: most prominently, a therapeutic rationale, and more recently, a public education rationale. In this article, I expand upon my critiques of the informational and therapeutic rationales in light of a growing body of empirical evidence about how VIS affect both sentencers and crime victims. Focusing on the powerful and viral VIS delivered at the Larry Nassar guilty plea hearings and …
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Brooklyn Law Review
A broad scholarly coalition supports the prohibition or diminution of the impeachment of criminal defendants with their convictions. Yet scholars should pay more attention to the flipside arrangement: impeachment of prosecution witnesses by defense counsel. First, because those engaged in reform efforts need to resolve the competing interests: constitutional arguments on behalf of the defense, but, on the other hand, concerns about a tool that (regardless of the nature of the witness) risks reinforcing biases and stereotypes. Second, because the impossibility of adequate resolution is itself important to note. Whether one considers the conflicting values of rule-makers deciding whether to …
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …