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

Evidence Commons

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

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Richardson V. State: An Opportunity Missed, Jay F. Cook Oct 1971

Richardson V. State: An Opportunity Missed, Jay F. Cook

Indiana Law Journal

Recent Developments in Indiana Law


Title Iv - False Declarations, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum Jan 1971

Title Iv - False Declarations, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Title IV was designed to facilitate the bringing of federal perjury prosecutions, thereby strengthening the deterrent value of the perjury penalties and acting as a greater incentive for truthful testimony. It establishes a new false declarations statute applicable to court and grand jury proceedings, with maximum penalty slightly increased over that allowable under the previously controlling perjury statute.


Title Vi - Depositions, Peter A. Kelly Jan 1971

Title Vi - Depositions, Peter A. Kelly

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Title VI expands Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit the Government to depose its witnesses in certain limited classes of cases. Previously only the defendant had been accorded this right. Upon the motion of either party at any time after a criminal indictment or information has been filed, the court may order that the testimony of the party's witnesses be taken by deposition if "due to exceptional circumstances it is in the interest of justice" that such testimony be taken and preserved. Such exceptional circumstances were intended by Congress to include the existence of ...


Title Iii - Recalcitrant Witnesses, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum Jan 1971

Title Iii - Recalcitrant Witnesses, Jeffrey J. Greenbaum

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This title represents a congressional attempt to codify the court-developed civil contempt practice. When a witness is granted immunity and still refuses to answer the question presented to him he can be ordered by a court to answer the specific question. Upon his continued refusal, a court can have him confined summarily until he complies with such order, or until he is no longer able to comply. Such confinement is not intended to be punitive in nature, but rather to coerce compliance with the court's order by imposing imprisonment as an alternative to answering the question. The witness will ...