Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
-
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Film (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Hearsay Exception (1)
- Jury (1)
- Law and culture (1)
- Law and humanities (1)
- Law and literature (1)
- Nonhearsay (1)
- Proof (1)
- Qualified immunity (1)
- Sixth amendment (1)
- Supreme court (1)
- Testimonial Hearsay (1)
- Trial practice (1)
- Unintended Assertions (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris holds that a Georgia police officer did not violate a fleeing suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he caused the suspect's car to crash. The court's decision relies almost entirely on the filmed version of the high-speed police chase taken from a "dash-cam," a video camera mounted on the dashboard of the pursuing police cruiser. The Supreme Court said that in light of the contrary stories told by the opposing parties to the lawsuit, the only story to be believed was that told by the video. In Scott v. Harris, the court fell …