Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (6)
- Evidence law (5)
- Criminal procedure (4)
- Evidence (4)
- Hearsay (4)
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Colorado (2)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Crawford v. Washington (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- Testimonial hearsay (2)
- 801(d)(1)(b) (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Admissibility of evidence (1)
- Admissions doctrine (1)
- Against-interest exception (1)
- Archives (1)
- Blood tests (1)
- Bruton v. United States (1)
- C.R.E. 702 test (1)
- California Supreme Court (1)
- Clinical social workers (1)
- Colorado Rules of Evidence (1)
- Common law (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Custodial interrogation (1)
- DNA evidence (1)
- Damages (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
What Remains Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Will Hauptman
What Remains Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Will Hauptman
University of Colorado Law Review Forum
No abstract provided.
"Make Him An Offer He Can't Refuse"-- Mezzanatto Waivers As Lynchpin Of Prosecutorial Overreach, Christopher B. Mueller
"Make Him An Offer He Can't Refuse"-- Mezzanatto Waivers As Lynchpin Of Prosecutorial Overreach, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
Plea bargaining is the dominant means of disposing of criminal charges in the United States, in both state and federal courts. This administrative mechanism has become a system that is grossly abusive of individual rights, leading to many well-known maladies of the criminal justice system, which include overcharging, overincarceration, convictions on charges that would likely fail at trial, and even conviction of “factually innocent” persons. Instrumental in the abuses of plea bargaining is the so-called Mezzanatto waiver, which takes its name from a 1995 Supreme Court decision that approved the practice of getting defendants to agree that anything they say …
Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers Of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Christopher B. Mueller
Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers Of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
A recent amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) expands the situations in which prior consistent statements by testifying witnesses can be used as substantive evidence, and not merely as rehabilitating evidence. In this piece, the Authors argue that the revised rule may mislead judges and lawyers to conclude that prior consistent statements are always usable as substantive evidence when offered to rehabilitate a witness. Nothing could be further from the truth. The intent, although hard to discern on the face of the revised rule, is only to allow substantive use of consistent statements that are otherwise admissible to rehabilitate …
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson
"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson
Publications
This paper, a companion piece to the author's earlier exploration of the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, describes the remarkable record of unethical conduct compiled by the eminent and respectable attorneys for the insurance companies in the course of that litigation. When married with the Supreme Court Justices' uncritical willingness to accept the false narrative thus contrived, these attorneys' misconduct led to the creation of an important rule of evidence - a rule of questionable merit. This article aims to remind us that lawyers who are willing to distort the process of litigation have the power …
"Particular Intentions": The Hillmon Case And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson
"Particular Intentions": The Hillmon Case And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson
Publications
The case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon is one of the most influential decisions in the law of evidence. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1892, it invented an exception to the hearsay rule for statements encompassing the intentions of the declarant. But this exception seems not to rest on any plausible theory of the categorical reliability of such statements. This article suggests that the case turned instead on the Court's attachment to a particular narrative about the events that gave rise to the case, events that produced a corpse of disputed identity. The author's investigations into newspaper …
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Publications
This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.
The Hillmon Case, The Macguffin, And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson
The Hillmon Case, The Macguffin, And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson
Publications
The case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon is one of the most influential decisions in the law of evidence. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1892, it invented an exception to the hearsay rule for statements encompassing the intentions of the declarant. But this exception seems not to rest on any plausible theory of the categorical reliability of such statements. This article suggests that the case turned instead on the Court's understanding of the facts of the underlying dispute about the identity of a corpse. The author's investigations into newspaper archives and the original case documents point to …
Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller
Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee: Truth And Other Values In A Therapeutic Age, Christopher B. Mueller
The Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee: Truth And Other Values In A Therapeutic Age, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman
Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.
Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag
Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag
Publications
No abstract provided.
Current Decision, Due Process--Use Of Blood Tests To Determine Intoxication Not Violative Of Due Process, Howard Klemme
Current Decision, Due Process--Use Of Blood Tests To Determine Intoxication Not Violative Of Due Process, Howard Klemme
Publications
No abstract provided.