Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Crawford v. Washington (2)
- Miranda v. Arizona (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Child witness (1)
-
- Children's testimony (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Confrontation Right in Europe (1)
- Crime crisis (1)
- Criminal jurisprudence (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fisher (Jeff) (1)
- Forensic laboratory reports (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Fresh accusations (1)
- History (1)
- Interrogation (1)
- Juries (1)
- Language (1)
- Mapp v. Ohio (1)
- Miranda rights (1)
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) (1)
- Ohio v. Roberts (1)
- Police (1)
- Remote confrontation (1)
- Rights of the accused (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
This chapter examines the right of criminal defendants to be confronted with the witnesses against them. It first provides an overview of the nature, purposes, and costs of the confrontation right before discussing the history of the confrontation right. It then considers a range of issues that may arise in any jurisdiction (or in some cases, any common law jurisdiction) with regard to the confrontation right, using as a touchstone the current status of the right in the United States. In particular, it describes situations in which the question of whether a statement is testimonial typically arises, such as fresh …
The Story Of Crawford, Richard D. Friedman
The Story Of Crawford, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
Michael Crawford had been charged with assault. At his trial, the prosecution offered a statement made in the police station on the night of the incident by Crawford's wife Sylvia, who did not testify at trial. He objected, in part on the ground that this violated his right under the Confrontation Clause. The trial court nevertheless admitted the statement, and Crawford was convicted. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the judgment. In rejecting the Confrontation Clause challenge, that court purported to apply the then governing doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, under which the Clause posed no obstacle to admissibility if …
The Rights Of The Accused In A 'Crime Crisis', Yale Kamisar
The Rights Of The Accused In A 'Crime Crisis', Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
"I grieve for my country to say that the administration of the criminal law in all the states in the Union (there may be one or two exceptions) is a disgrace to our civilization .... The institution of trial by jury has come to be regarded as such a fetish in our country that state legislatures have exalted the power of the jury and diminished the power of the court .... The counsel for the defense, relying on the diminished power of the court, creates, by dramatic art and by harping on the importance of unimportant details, a false atmosphere …
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda.
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
A Dissent From The Miranda Dissents: Some Comments On The 'New' Fifth Amendment And The Old 'Voluntariness' Test, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
If the several conferences and workshops (and many lunch conversations) on police interrogation and confessions in which I have participated this past summer are any indication, Miranda v. Arizona has evoked much anger and spread much sorrow among judges, lawyers and professors. In the months and years ahead, such reaction is likely to be translated into microscopic analyses and relentless, probing criticism of the majority opinion. During this period of agonizing appraisal and reappraisal, I think it important that various assumptions and assertions in the dissenting opinions do not escape attention.