Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (4)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
- Expert evidence (2)
- Police (2)
-
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- Testimony (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Character (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)
- Exclusion (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Juries (1)
- Mapp v. Ohio (1)
- Ohio v. Roberts (1)
- Prior misconduct (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Searches (1)
- Seizures (1)
- Testimonial (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
In Defense Of The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule (Law And Truth - The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium On Law And Public Policy - 2002), Yale Kamisar
Articles
think Dean Pye's advice about casebook writing was sound,6 and what he had to say also applies to discussions and debates about such issues as the search and seizure exclusionary rule. We cannot (at least we should not) begin with Mapp v. Ohio. We need a prelude.
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
On June 9, by granting certiorari in Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410, the Supreme Court signaled its intention to enter once again into the realm of the Confrontation Clause, in which it has found itself deeply perplexed. This time there was a difference, however, because the grant indicated that the Court might be willing to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Crawford, like Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), presents a classic case of what might be called station-house testimony. Michael Crawford was accused of stabbing another man. His wife, Sylvia, was …
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have been working so obsessively on the accused's right to confront the witnesses against him 1 that I am gratified that the organizers of this conference have designated confrontation as one of the "hot topics" of Evidence law. I am not so egotistical as to think that my work has made confrontation into a hot topic; I am just glad to know that I am working where a good deal of action is, and that other scholars recognize that confrontation is an important area in which dramatic changes may be occurring.
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this essay, I will offer some thoughts on how we might reframe the issues governing the admissibility of expert evidence. My principal focus is not on any particular type of expert evidence but on broader questions: the extent to which we ought to rely on rulings of admissibility, the standards that should govern admissibility rulings, and the role of the trial and appellate courts in making those rulings. To some extent, I will concentrate on the context of criminal cases, but for the most part my conclusions apply in both civil and criminal litigation. Here are my conclusions: First, …
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
A great deal of the rhetoric of evidence discourse concerns the supposed cognitive inadequacies of the jury. In various contexts we are told that although an item of evidence is probative, it must be excluded because the jury will give it too much weight. I believe this approach has played far too great a role in evidentiary law, and that it is an interesting project to see whether we can construct a satisfactory body of law without relying at all on the cognitive inadequacy argument. I think that, at least to a large extent, we can. In some settings, where …