Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due process (2)
- Access to justice (1)
- Attenuation exception (1)
- Cell site location information (1)
- Child sexual abuse (1)
-
- Children's out of court testimony (1)
- Communication (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Crime control (1)
- Criminology (1)
- D'Alessio v. State (1)
- Emond Plumbing & Heating v. BankNewport (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidentiary exclusion (1)
- FIA Card Services N.A. v. Pichette (1)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree (1)
- Gianfrancesco v. A.R. Bilodeau (1)
- Guilty pleas based on faulty field tests (1)
- Historical CSLI (1)
- Ho-Rath v. R.I. Hospital (1)
- Huddleston v United States (1)
- Ideograph (1)
- In re Kevin A. McKenna (1)
- In re Max M. (1)
- Kayak Centre of RI v Town of Narragansett (1)
- Law (1)
- McGee (1)
- Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island v. Charlesgate Nursing Ctr (1)
- Packer (1)
- Peerless Ins. Co. v. Luppe (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
State V. Hudgen¸ 272 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2022)., Judd W. Krasher
State V. Hudgen¸ 272 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2022)., Judd W. Krasher
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
State V. Smith, 243 A.3d 1045 (R.I. 2021), Katriina Rose Juntunen
State V. Smith, 243 A.3d 1045 (R.I. 2021), Katriina Rose Juntunen
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rap Reform: Why Rhode Island Should Exclude Police Detectives And Gang Experts From Interpreting A Criminal Defendant’S Ambiguous Rap Lyrics, Chad O. Stroum
Rap Reform: Why Rhode Island Should Exclude Police Detectives And Gang Experts From Interpreting A Criminal Defendant’S Ambiguous Rap Lyrics, Chad O. Stroum
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
2021 Surveys Of Rhode Island Law
2021 Surveys Of Rhode Island Law
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
State V. Jones, 242 A.3d 47 (R.I. 2020)., Elizabeth Gravelle
State V. Jones, 242 A.3d 47 (R.I. 2020)., Elizabeth Gravelle
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
The "Primary Purpose" Of Children's Advocacy Centers: How Ohio V. Clark Revolutionized Children's Hearsay, Andrew Lentz
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Hotline Ping: Harmonizing Contemporary Cell Phone Technology With Traditional Fourth Amendment Protections, Brianne M. Chevalier
Hotline Ping: Harmonizing Contemporary Cell Phone Technology With Traditional Fourth Amendment Protections, Brianne M. Chevalier
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Illegal Stops And The Exclusionary Rule: The Consequences Of Utah V. Strieff, Emily J. Sack
Illegal Stops And The Exclusionary Rule: The Consequences Of Utah V. Strieff, Emily J. Sack
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Restoring The Character Evidence Rule: Reconsidering Evidence Of Crimes, Wrongs, And Other Acts In Rhode Island, Edward Pare Iii
Restoring The Character Evidence Rule: Reconsidering Evidence Of Crimes, Wrongs, And Other Acts In Rhode Island, Edward Pare Iii
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
2015 Survey Of Rhode Island Law: Cases And Public Laws Of Note, Roger Williams University Law Review Staff
2015 Survey Of Rhode Island Law: Cases And Public Laws Of Note, Roger Williams University Law Review Staff
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor
Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor
Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association
This paper uses the dichotomy between Herbert Packer’s (1968) two models of criminal justice advocacy – “crime control” and “due process” – as a rhetorical paradigm for understanding policy debate about the exclusion of relevant evidence at trial. Understanding the opposition between crime control and due process advocates as a rhetorical controversy, in which commonly-used ideographs camouflage dramatically different constructions of the concepts at stake, helps to illuminate the way each side mobilizes public support for their narrative of doing . While both the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally-obtained evidence in criminal cases) and the “fruit of …