Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain Oct 2016

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .

Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to section numbers of L. MCLAIN, …


Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis Jan 2016

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …


Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough Nov 2003

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard Nov 2002

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Consent Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman Jan 1994

The Consent Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.


Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman Jan 1993

Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.


Current Decision, Weight And Admissibility Of Chemical Tests As Evidence Of Intoxication, Howard Klemme Jan 1953

Current Decision, Weight And Admissibility Of Chemical Tests As Evidence Of Intoxication, Howard Klemme

Publications

No abstract provided.


Current Decision, Due Process--Use Of Blood Tests To Determine Intoxication Not Violative Of Due Process, Howard Klemme Jan 1953

Current Decision, Due Process--Use Of Blood Tests To Determine Intoxication Not Violative Of Due Process, Howard Klemme

Publications

No abstract provided.