Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Testimonial Statements, Excited Utterances And The Confrontation Clause: Formulating A Precise Rule After Crawford And Davis, Gary M. Bishop
Testimonial Statements, Excited Utterances And The Confrontation Clause: Formulating A Precise Rule After Crawford And Davis, Gary M. Bishop
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will analyze whether the post-Crawford decisions have been consistent in their treatment of statements that qualify as excited utterances in light of the Confrontation Clause principles and various definitions of testimonial in Crawford. Part II of this Article will provide a discussion of the Crawford decision itself and an analysis of Crawford's treatment of earlier cases in this area. Part III of this Article will provide a discussion and analysis of court decisions that have applied Crawford in the context of excited utterances. It will do this by examining the factors that these courts have considered and emphasized …
Crying Wolf Or An Excited Utterance - Allowing Reexcited Statements To Qualify Under The Excited Utterance Exception, Jone Tran
Cleveland State Law Review
It is clear that the reexcitement analysis has both benefits and detriments. Reexcitement may be a basis for admission of evidence in cases where the danger of influencing during the calm period is somehow obviated-as in the recent Crawford opinion. Because of the heightened danger of undue influence in reexcitement cases, the courts should require corroborating evidence that the declarant did not confide in anyone during the intervening period of calm, to reduce the chance of outside pressures and influences. Congress should provide an amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly allowing for reexcitement, but also requiring either physical …
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …
Evidence Problems In Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Ronald J. Harpst
Evidence Problems In Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Ronald J. Harpst
Cleveland State Law Review
Some of the most perplexing problems facing the attorney defending a child charged with a delinquency have their inception in misunderstandings, lack of uniformity and loose application of evidential rules. In order to serve the best interests of the children who are before it, and to obtain necessary facts with which to formulate a rehabilitation plan, the courts have a tendency to waive strict adherence to evidence rules. The methodical attorney wonders how the court can serve the best interests of the child and yet seemingly not afford to the child the equal protection of its laws of evidence.