Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (3)
- Confessions (2)
- Custodial interrogations (2)
- Hearsay (2)
- Probative value (2)
-
- Testimony (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Bayesian probability (1)
- Children (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Facts (1)
- Foreign evidence (1)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (1)
- History (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Interviewing techniques (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislative history (1)
- Lilly v. Virginia (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
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 …
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.
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 …