Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Don’T Blame Crawford Or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All Davis’S Fault, Deborah Ahrens, John Mitchell
Don’T Blame Crawford Or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All Davis’S Fault, Deborah Ahrens, John Mitchell
Faculty Articles
In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed …
Truth Or Consequences: Self-Incriminating Statements And Informant Veracity, Mary Nicol Bowman
Truth Or Consequences: Self-Incriminating Statements And Informant Veracity, Mary Nicol Bowman
Faculty Articles
Courts treat self-incriminating statements by criminal informants as a significant factor favoring the reliability of the informant’s information when making probable cause determinations for the issuance of search warrants. Courts do so even though admissions of criminal activity usually undercut, rather than support, credibility. In using self-incriminating statements to support the informant’s reliability, courts tend to rely on a theory with significant theoretical flaws. Furthermore, recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence in other contexts undercuts the reliability of using self-incriminating statements to support the veracity of other information. If courts adequately scrutinize the informant’s self-incriminating statements and the circumstances surrounding …
Evaluating Brady Error Using Narrative Theory: A Proposal For Reform, John B. Mitchell
Evaluating Brady Error Using Narrative Theory: A Proposal For Reform, John B. Mitchell
Faculty Articles
When the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Old Chief v. United States, the Court examined Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in light of a defense offer to stipulate to aspects of the proffered prosecution evidence, purportedly to lessen their prejudicial impact. At the core of the opinion rests the validation of a theory born from such disparate fields as Law and Literature, Sociology, and Narrative Theory. This article argues that, though it was not on the proverbial radar screen of the Court when it decided Old Chief, narrative theory provides the most effective tool available for assessing prejudice …
Testimonial Consistency: The Hobgoblin Of The Federal False Declaration Statute, Sidney Delong
Testimonial Consistency: The Hobgoblin Of The Federal False Declaration Statute, Sidney Delong
Faculty Articles
This article focuses on the inconsistent statement provision of the Federal False Declaration Statute. Part I of this article identifies certain anomalous aspects of perjury that make it particularly difficult to control by threats of punishment. Perjury's resemblance to an innocent mistake creates a risk that criminal sanctions will be misapplied. These sanctions may have counterproductive effects, at times inducing people to commit perjury and at others inhibiting people from correcting inaccurate testimony that they have previously given. Part II demonstrates the way in which the conflict between the goals of deterrence and mitigation is manifested in the federal perjury …