Evidence Commons^™

The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.

In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …

No Link: The Jury And The Origins Of The Confrontation Right And The Hearsay Rule, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

The rule against hearsay has long been one of the most distinctive elements of the common law of evidence, and indeed— except for recent changes on the civil side in many jurisdictions— of the common law system of trial. Observers have long believed that the rule, like most of the other exclusionary rules of the common law of evidence, is "the child of the jury system". Though Edmund Morgan argued vigorously to the contrary, the received understanding is that the jury's inability to account satisfactorily for the defects of hearsay explains the rule. A famous, and perhaps seminal, expression of …

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.

Use Of Record Of Criminal Conviction In Subsequent Civil Action Arising From The Same Facts As The Prosecution, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The overwhelming majority of courts considering the issue without the aid of pertinent legislation have held that a record of a prior criminal conviction may not be used against a convicted person in subsequent civil proceedings arising from the same facts as the criminal prosecution but to which the state is not a party. It is admissible neither as evidence of the facts underlying it, nor as the basis of an estoppel preventing the convicted party from relitigating those issues which must have been decided against him in the criminal trial for the judge or jury to have found him …

People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Where there was prima facie proof of the existence of a conspiracy, testimony concerning a co-conspirator's statements in furtherance of the conspiracy, though made in the absence of defendant, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.