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

Evidence Commons

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

Hearsay

Michigan Law Review

Criminal Procedure

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda Mar 1999

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …


The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen May 1979

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …


The Psychiatrist As An Expert Witness: Some Ruminations And Speculations, Bernard L. Diamond, David W. Louisell Jun 1965

The Psychiatrist As An Expert Witness: Some Ruminations And Speculations, Bernard L. Diamond, David W. Louisell

Michigan Law Review

Consider the difference between the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon in a personal injury suit and the testimony of a psychiatrist in a murder trial in which some elements of the mens rea are at issue. In both instances an expert opinion is received in evidence, providing the trier of fact with technical, specialized information which must, or should, be available in order to permit a rational decision-making process. Well-established rules govern the nature of expert evidence and its mode of presentation. In legal theory, the orthopedic surgeon and the psychiatrist are both experts-physicians-who perform comparable functions in the …


Evidence - Rules Of Evidence In Disbarment, Habeas Corpus, And Grand Jury Proceedings, Paul S. Gerding S.Ed. Jun 1960

Evidence - Rules Of Evidence In Disbarment, Habeas Corpus, And Grand Jury Proceedings, Paul S. Gerding S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

It is the purpose of this comment to examine three common-law proceedings in which rules of evidence are generally not governed by statute, to determine whether the liberalism expressed in administrative hearings has extended to non-statutory areas. Specifically, to what extent have the exclusionary rules of evidence, which rest on the theory of preventing the jury from being misled (the "jury theory"), been abandoned in disbarment, habeas corpus, and grand jury proceedings?


Evidence - Rules Of Evidence In Disbarment, Habeas Corpus, And Grand Jury Proceedings, Paul S. Gerding S.Ed. Jun 1960

Evidence - Rules Of Evidence In Disbarment, Habeas Corpus, And Grand Jury Proceedings, Paul S. Gerding S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

It is the purpose of this comment to examine three common-law proceedings in which rules of evidence are generally not governed by statute, to determine whether the liberalism expressed in administrative hearings has extended to non-statutory areas. Specifically, to what extent have the exclusionary rules of evidence, which rest on the theory of preventing the jury from being misled (the "jury theory"), been abandoned in disbarment, habeas corpus, and grand jury proceedings?