Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Hearsay (4)
- Admissibility (3)
- Witnesses (3)
- Confessions (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
-
- Custodial interrogations (2)
- Probative value (2)
- Testimony (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Bayesian probability (1)
- Children (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Criminal discovery (1)
- Cross-examiner (1)
- Dickerson v. United States (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Facts (1)
- History (1)
- Interviewing techniques (1)
- Journalist privilege (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Laws of evidence (1)
- Legislative history (1)
- Lilly v. Virginia (1)
- Mandatory procedural protections (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- New York law (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include …
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …
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 …
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 …
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.