Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Confrontation Clause (6)
- Crawford v. Washington (6)
- Davis v. Washington (6)
- Testimony (4)
- Child Testimony (3)
-
- Child witnesses (3)
- Cross-examination (3)
- Evidence (3)
- Sixth Amendment (3)
- Testimonial (3)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Witnesses (3)
- Derecho Civil (2)
- Hammon v. Indiana (2)
- Hearsay (2)
- Access to information (1)
- Access to justice (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Attitudinal (1)
- Blinders (1)
- Cesión de derechos (1)
- Child Abuse Litigation (1)
- Children as Witnesses (1)
- Children's Hearsay (1)
- Coercion (1)
- Cognitive (1)
- Common (1)
- Competency (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Access To Information, Access To Justice: The Role Of Presuit Investigatory Discovery, Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman
Access To Information, Access To Justice: The Role Of Presuit Investigatory Discovery, Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
What is the relationship between access to information and access to justice? Private parties obviously have many publicly available points of access to the information they seek in order to file a lawsuit. Lawyers can talk to their clients and other willing witnesses. Documents can be gathered. Specific statutes may sometimes permit information to be obtained before a formal lawsuit is brought. On other occasions, however, information needed or desired will lie solely within the exclusive knowledge and control of another The ability of private parties to compel the production of information, documents, or testimony before litigation rarely has been …
Comments On Child Abuse Litigation In A "Testimonial" World: The Intersection Of Competency, Hearsay, And Confrontation, Myrna S. Raeder
Comments On Child Abuse Litigation In A "Testimonial" World: The Intersection Of Competency, Hearsay, And Confrontation, Myrna S. Raeder
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Toward A History Of Children As Witnesses, David S. Tanenhaus, William Bush
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Kids Say The Darndest Things: The Prosecutorial Use Of Hearsay Statements By Children, Tom Lininger
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna
Indiana Law Journal
The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
La Cesión De Derechos En El Código Civil Peruano, Edward Ivan Cueva
La Cesión De Derechos En El Código Civil Peruano, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
La Cesión de Derechos en el Código Civil Peruano
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …
Encarcelados Por Error, Felipe Marín
Algunos Apuntes En Torno A La Prescripción Extintiva Y La Caducidad, Edward Ivan Cueva
Algunos Apuntes En Torno A La Prescripción Extintiva Y La Caducidad, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
No abstract provided.
Efforts To Improve The Illinois Capital Punishment System: Worth The Cost?, Thomas P. Sullivan
Efforts To Improve The Illinois Capital Punishment System: Worth The Cost?, Thomas P. Sullivan
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.
Crawford, Davis, And Way Beyond, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford, Davis, And Way Beyond, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Until 1965, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution hardly mattered. It was not applicable against the states, and therefore had no role whatsoever in the vast majority of prosecutions. Moreover, if a federal court was inclined to exclude evidence of an out-of-court statement, it made little practical difference whether the court termed the statement hearsay or held that the evidence did not comply with the Confrontation Clause.
Comment: Experts Who Don't Know They Don't Know, Jonathan Koehler
Comment: Experts Who Don't Know They Don't Know, Jonathan Koehler
Faculty Working Papers
Sadly, the conclusion reached by Green and Armstrong (2006) – that experts should not be used for predicting the decisions that people will make in conflicts – comes as no surprise. Decades ago, Armstrong himself taught us that expertise beyond a minimal level does not improve judgmental accuracy across a variety of domains (Armstrong, 1980). More recently, Tetlock (2006) drove home the point in a study of hundreds of political experts who made thousands of forecasts over many years. Like Green and Armstrong (2006), Tetlock (2006) found that that expert forecasts were frequently inaccurate. In a nod to Armstrong's previous …
Evidentiary Wisdom And Blinders In Perspective: Thoughts On Misjudging, Elaine W. Shoben
Evidentiary Wisdom And Blinders In Perspective: Thoughts On Misjudging, Elaine W. Shoben
Scholarly Works
Empirical studies serve to enlighten the law, even when they simply confirm the wisdom of existing rules. Chris Guthrie's article, Misjudging, primarily serves that useful function—confirming the wisdom of existing rules—even though the author sought to establish something different. Guthrie's article applies insights from cognitive psychology to the resolution of legal disputes and presents some empirical proof of the effect of the application. He concludes that three sets of “blinders”—informational, cognitive, and attitudinal—affect the ability of judges to reach correct resolutions of disputes. He therefore recommends further appreciation of the ability of arbitration and mediation to avoid some of the …
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …
Should Statements Made By Patients During Psychotherapy Fall Within The Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception? An Interdisciplinary Critique, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2007), Philip K. Hamilton
Should Statements Made By Patients During Psychotherapy Fall Within The Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception? An Interdisciplinary Critique, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2007), Philip K. Hamilton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Testimony Disclosure Under Federal Rule 26: A Proposed Amendment, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 117 (2007), Keith H. Beyler
Expert Testimony Disclosure Under Federal Rule 26: A Proposed Amendment, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 117 (2007), Keith H. Beyler
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Symposium Introduction -- Miranda At 40: Applications In A Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World, Donald J. Kochan
Symposium Introduction -- Miranda At 40: Applications In A Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World, Donald J. Kochan
Donald J. Kochan
The groundbreaking case of Miranda v. Arizona raise[d] questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. This Introduction to the 2007 Chapman Law Review Symposium summarizes the contemporary examination of Miranda's influence, past and present, along with the continuing debate today. The experiences and precedents that have evolved in the past 40 years helps to explore the evolution of the criminal law and procedural dictates set forth in Miranda. Complications with custodial interrogation - and the impulses and incentives involved …