Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Witness For The Defense: A Right To Immunity, Robin D. Mass
Witness For The Defense: A Right To Immunity, Robin D. Mass
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Note has outlined various constitutional arguments that the criminal defendant can invoke in support of an application for witness immunity.First, the Note relies on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon for its argument that courts should use a flexible separation of powers approach in the context of witness immunity grants. While the Nixon Court accepted the notion that separation of powers protects the decision making authority of the individual branches of government from infringement by the other branches, it observed that the doctrine does not enforce an absolute executive privilege. Thus, the separation of powers doctrine …
Civil Juries And Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush To Judgment, Richard O. Lempert
Civil Juries And Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush To Judgment, Richard O. Lempert
Michigan Law Review
When a fundamental constitutional right is at issue, it is admittedly difficult for the Court to treat the lower courts as laboratories. But if the constitutional right turns on empirical questions, it is better to wait for knowledge than to rush toward a judgment that may later be shown to have vitiated an important right across all circuits. If the Court feels compelled to resolve the conflict, the better decision - if empirical issues are seen as central - is to sustain the right to jury trial regardless of complexity. Sustaining that right will allow courts and researchers to collect …
Comparison Evidence In Obscenity Trials, Marguerite Munson Lentz
Comparison Evidence In Obscenity Trials, Marguerite Munson Lentz
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Article critiques the approach endorsed in Hamling, particularly regarding the Court's failure to consider how the presentation of proof in an obscenity trial affects the defendant's constitutional rights. The Article urges that relevant comparison evidence should be admissible despite the risk of confusion or the opportunity to present expert testimony, and furthermore, that a court should be required to make explicit its findings regarding the relevancy of comparison evidence. Part I of the Article demonstrates the constitutional significance to the obscenity defendant of evidence, particularly comparison exhibits, bearing on prevailing community standards. Part II considers the assessment of …