Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Derecho Civil (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Hearsay (2)
- Cesión de derechos (1)
-
- Coercion (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Custody (1)
- Código civil peruano (1)
- Dreyfus (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Exclusionary Rule (1)
- Fact Finding (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Handwriting (1)
- Hearsay Declarations (1)
- Illegally-Obtained Evidence (1)
- Interrogation (1)
- James v. Illinois (1)
- Jurisprudence, Government, Courts, and Constitutional Law (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Miranda (1)
- Probability (1)
- Prosecutorial Neglect (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- Statistics (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
La Cesión De Derechos En El Código Civil Peruano, Edward Ivan Cueva
La Cesión De Derechos En El Código Civil Peruano, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
La Cesión de Derechos en el Código Civil Peruano
Algunos Apuntes En Torno A La Prescripción Extintiva Y La Caducidad, Edward Ivan Cueva
Algunos Apuntes En Torno A La Prescripción Extintiva Y La Caducidad, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
No abstract provided.
The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait
The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait
Articles & Chapters
After Crawford v. Washington asserted that the Confrontation Clause constitutionalized the common law right of confrontation, cases have been suggested that illustrate that right. This short essay considers whether the 1779 English case Rex v. Brasier is such a decision, as some contend. The essay concludes that Brasier says nothing about the right of confrontation and points to a comparable framing-era, American case that indicates that general rules about hearsay and confrontation were not at issue. The essay maintains that if the historical understandings of the right of confrontation and hearsay are to control the Confrontation Clause, then framing-era, American …
Revisiting 'Dreyfus': A More Complete Account Of A Trial By Mathematics, David H. Kaye
Revisiting 'Dreyfus': A More Complete Account Of A Trial By Mathematics, David H. Kaye
Journal Articles
Legal literature and case law depicts the infamous conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for treason and espionage in 1899 as a prime example of the irresistible power of even grossly fallacious mathematical demonstrations to overwhelm a legal tribunal. This essay shows that Dreyfus is not a case of mathematics run amok, unchecked and uncomprehended. To the contrary, the defects in the mathematical proof were dramatically exposed, and this evidence did not lead Dreyfus's judges to condemn him. This history undercuts the reliance of modern courts and commentators on Dreyfus as an indication or illustration of the alleged dangers of probability evidence …
"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson
"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson
Publications
This paper, a companion piece to the author's earlier exploration of the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, describes the remarkable record of unethical conduct compiled by the eminent and respectable attorneys for the insurance companies in the course of that litigation. When married with the Supreme Court Justices' uncritical willingness to accept the false narrative thus contrived, these attorneys' misconduct led to the creation of an important rule of evidence - a rule of questionable merit. This article aims to remind us that lawyers who are willing to distort the process of litigation have the power …
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …
Symposium Introduction -- Miranda At 40: Applications In A Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World, Donald J. Kochan
Symposium Introduction -- Miranda At 40: Applications In A Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World, Donald J. Kochan
Donald J. Kochan
The groundbreaking case of Miranda v. Arizona raise[d] questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. This Introduction to the 2007 Chapman Law Review Symposium summarizes the contemporary examination of Miranda's influence, past and present, along with the continuing debate today. The experiences and precedents that have evolved in the past 40 years helps to explore the evolution of the criminal law and procedural dictates set forth in Miranda. Complications with custodial interrogation - and the impulses and incentives involved …