Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Police (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Arrest (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- California (1)
-
- California Court of Appeal (1)
- California Supreme Court (1)
- Captial defendant (1)
- Co-Occupant (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Consent (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Cotenant (1)
- Crawford (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Evidence (1)
- FDPA (1)
- Fernandez v. California (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Georgia v. Randolph (1)
- Massiah v. United States (1)
- Matlock (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Occupant (1)
- Officers (1)
- Right of confrontation (1)
- Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation (1)
- Sixth amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus
Michigan Law Review
Confession law is in a state of collapse. Fifty years ago, three different doctrines imposed constitutional limits on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: Miranda doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, Massiah doctrine under the Sixth Amendment, and voluntariness doctrine under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted Miranda and Massiah, effectively leaving suspects with only voluntariness doctrine to protect them during police interrogations. The voluntariness test is a notoriously vague case-by-case standard. In this Article, I argue that if voluntariness is going to be the framework for …
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti
Akron Law Review
"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: Federal Death Eligibility Determinations And Judicial Trifurcations, Michael D. Pepson, John N. Sharifi
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: Federal Death Eligibility Determinations And Judicial Trifurcations, Michael D. Pepson, John N. Sharifi
Akron Law Review
Broadly speaking, the purpose of this article is to bring attention to this radical and irreconcilable disparity between the unequivocal Sixth Amendment right of confrontation criminal defendants are afforded at trial,and the limited, qualified right of confrontation the FDPA grants federal capital defendants during death-eligibility determinations, which occur as part of the sentencing phase. It advances the argument that there is no tenable principled distinction on which this disparate procedural treatment may rest. We will attempt to demonstrate that, as written, the statutory provision that governs the admission of evidence at capital sentencings—18 U.S.C. § 3593(c)—is unconstitutional on its face …
P-Values, Priors, And Procedure In Antidiscrimination Law, Jason R. Bent
P-Values, Priors, And Procedure In Antidiscrimination Law, Jason R. Bent
Buffalo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.