Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
"Minute And Separate": Considering The Admissibility Of Videotaped Forensic Interviews In Child Sexual Abuse Cases After Crawford And Davis, Kimberly Y. Chin
Boston College Third World Law Journal
Child sexual abuse is one of the least prosecuted crimes in the United States in part because of the many evidentiary challenges prosecutors face. In 2004, the Supreme Court introduced a new standard for determining the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by declarants who are unavailable to testify at trial. In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that testimonial statements are only admissible at trial if the declarant is unavailable to testify and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination. This Note will examine Crawford’s impact on the admissibility of videotaped forensic interviews with child victims of sexual ...
Islamic Legal Maxims As Substantive Canons Of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance In Cases Of Doubt, Intisar A. Rabb
Boston College Law School Faculty Papers
Legal maxims reflect settled principles of law to which jurists appeal when confronting new legal cases. One such maxim of Islamic criminal law stipulates that judges are to avoid imposing ḥudūd and other sanctions when beset by doubts as to the scope of the law or the sufficiency of the evidence (idra’ū ʾl-ḥudūd biʾl-shubahāt): the “ḥudūd maxim.” Jurists of all periods reference this maxim widely. But whereas developed juristic works attribute it to Muḥammad in the form of a prophetic report (ḥadīth), early jurists do not. Instead, they cite the maxim as an anonymous saying of nonspecific provenance in ...
Procedural Due Process And Hearsay Evidence In Section 8 Housing Voucher Termination Hearings, Margaretta E. Homsey
Boston College Law Review
The federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides critical housing subsidy assistance to over two million low-income families in the United States. Each year some of these families have their Section 8 voucher assistance terminated based solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence relied on by local public housing authorities to prove various program violations. State and federal courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether these terminations violate families’ procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal regulations governing the program. This Note argues that terminations based solely on hearsay evidence violate procedural due process and the federal ...