Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Maryland (2)
- ACLU (1)
- Admissibility of evidence (1)
- American Civil Liberties Union (1)
-
- Aracely Rodman (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional right (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Exclusion of evidence (1)
- Filming police (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Flow charts (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Hearsay exceptions (1)
- Individual right (1)
- Interference (1)
- Mobile justice app (1)
- Out of court statements (1)
- Police (1)
- Public forum (1)
- Public policy (1)
- Record police (1)
- Right of Confrontation (1)
- Rules of evidence (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Texas Penal Code Section 38.15 (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain
Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain
All Faculty Scholarship
This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .
Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to section numbers of L. MCLAIN, …
Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …
Filming The Police: An Interference Or A Public Service, Aracely Rodman
Filming The Police: An Interference Or A Public Service, Aracely Rodman
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming.