Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (1)
-
- Criminal Sentencing (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Hanging (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- History (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Media (1)
- Minnesota history (1)
- Newspapers (1)
- Ohio v. Roberts (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Testimonial (1)
- Testimony (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- William Williams (1)
- Witnesses (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Pleas' Progress, Stephanos Bibas
The Botched Hanging Of William Williams: How Too Much Rope And Minnesota’S Newspapers Brought An End To The Death Penalty In Minnesota, John Bessler
All Faculty Scholarship
This article describes Minnesota's last state-sanctioned execution: that of William Williams, who was hanged in 1906 in the basement of the Ramsey County Jail. Convicted of killing a teenage boy, Williams was tried on murder charges in 1905 and was put to death in February of the following year. Because the county sheriff miscalculated the length of the rope, the hanging was botched, with Williams hitting the floor when the trap door was opened. Three deputies, standing on the scaffold, thereafter seized the rope and forcibly pulled it up until Williams - fourteen and half minutes later - died by …
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …