Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (5)
- Courts (4)
- Criminal Law (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Constitutional Law (2)
-
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation (1)
- Probability (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Statistics and Probability (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson
Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman
Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the Wigmore treatise was the dominant force in organizing, setting out, and explaining the American law of evidence. Since then, the first two of those roles have been taken over in large part by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules). And the third has been performed most notably by the Weinstein treatise. Judge Jack Weinstein was present at the creation of the Rules and before. Though he first made his name in Civil Procedure, while still a young man he joined two of the stalwarts of evidence law, Edmund Morgan and …
Evidentiary Use Of Photographic Identification: Is It Time For New York To Reevaluate Its Singular Exception?, Daniela Giordano
Evidentiary Use Of Photographic Identification: Is It Time For New York To Reevaluate Its Singular Exception?, Daniela Giordano
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …
Expert Mining And Required Disclosure, Jonah B. Gelbach
Expert Mining And Required Disclosure, Jonah B. Gelbach
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank
The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I …
Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein
Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In the U.S. American trial system proof mainly consists of live witnesses presented in open court under oath before the judge, jury, and parties, subject to perjury laws. Cross-examination of the witnesses in that setting is the principal (though not the only) form of testing their reliability. It is for these reasons that we have a rule against hearsay (second-hand reporting in court of what someone has said outside of court).