Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (152)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (117)
- William & Mary Law School (62)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (47)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (42)
-
- Seattle University School of Law (37)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (36)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (33)
- Duke Law (32)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (28)
- University of Washington School of Law (28)
- American University Washington College of Law (27)
- Pepperdine University (27)
- Brooklyn Law School (25)
- Fordham Law School (25)
- UIC School of Law (25)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (22)
- University of Miami Law School (22)
- Mercer University School of Law (21)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (21)
- University of Richmond (21)
- Cleveland State University (20)
- West Virginia University (20)
- University of Georgia School of Law (19)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (18)
- Georgetown University Law Center (16)
- University of Kentucky (15)
- University of Maine School of Law (15)
- BLR (14)
- Cornell University Law School (14)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (324)
- Testimony (67)
- Admissibility (62)
- Sixth Amendment (56)
- Witnesses (55)
-
- Hearsay (52)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (51)
- Confrontation Clause (49)
- United States Supreme Court (49)
- Criminal law (47)
- Police (47)
- Exclusionary rule (43)
- Fourth Amendment (35)
- Cross-examination (34)
- Criminal procedure (33)
- DNA (30)
- Criminal Law (28)
- Criminal justice (28)
- Expert testimony (28)
- Due process (27)
- Scientific evidence (27)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (26)
- Crawford v. Washington (25)
- Fifth Amendment (24)
- Supreme Court (24)
- Confessions (23)
- Litigation (23)
- Trials (22)
- Criminal Procedure (21)
- Law (21)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (110)
- Articles (80)
- Faculty Publications (72)
- Cardozo Law Review (68)
- Michigan Law Review (42)
-
- Seattle University Law Review (35)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (31)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (30)
- Pepperdine Law Review (26)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (23)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (22)
- Mercer Law Review (21)
- UIC Law Review (21)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (20)
- Indiana Law Journal (20)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (20)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (19)
- Washington Law Review (19)
- West Virginia Law Review (18)
- Cleveland State Law Review (17)
- Fordham Law Review (15)
- Touro Law Review (15)
- ExpressO (14)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (14)
- Maine Law Review (14)
- Scholarly Works (14)
- University of Richmond Law Review (14)
- Maryland Law Review (13)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (12)
- Kentucky Law Journal (12)
- Publication Type
Articles 961 - 990 of 1439
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation Of Biological Evidence Under Innocence Protection Statutes, Cynthia Jones
Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation Of Biological Evidence Under Innocence Protection Statutes, Cynthia Jones
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
No abstract provided.
Crawford V. Washington, The Confrontation Clause, And Hearsay: A New Paradigm For Illinois Evidence Law, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 703 (2005), Ralph Ruebner, Timothy Scahill
Crawford V. Washington, The Confrontation Clause, And Hearsay: A New Paradigm For Illinois Evidence Law, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 703 (2005), Ralph Ruebner, Timothy Scahill
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller
“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
The definition that the Supreme Court ultimately gives to the concept of testimonial statements will obviously be of critical importance in determining whether the new Confrontation Clause analysis adopted by Crawford affects only a few core statements or applies to a broader group of accusatorial statements knowingly made to government officials and perhaps private individuals at arm's length from the speaker. I contend that the broader definition is more consistent with the anti-inquisitorial roots of the Confrontation Clause when that provision is applied in the modern world. If my sense of the proper scope of the clause is roughly correct, …
Crawford V. Washington, The Confrontation Clause, And Hearsay: A New Paradigm For Illinois Evidence Law, Ralph Ruebner, Timothy Scahill
Crawford V. Washington, The Confrontation Clause, And Hearsay: A New Paradigm For Illinois Evidence Law, Ralph Ruebner, Timothy Scahill
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Evidence—Sixth Amendment And The Confrontation Clause—Testimonial Trumps Reliable: The United States Supreme Court Reconsiders Its Approach To The Confrontation Clause. Crawford V. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)., Kristen Sluyter
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Brave New World Of Criminal Justice: Neil Gerlach's Genetic Imaginary, Stephen Coughlan
A Brave New World Of Criminal Justice: Neil Gerlach's Genetic Imaginary, Stephen Coughlan
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In this well written and intriguing book, Neil Gerlach asks why the criminal justice system has accepted DNA evidence in much the same way that our Anglo-Saxon predecessors accepted trial by ordeal. Why have we not instead shown the same caution we show polygraph evidence? To be sure, he does not present the issue in those terms, and might shudder at the analogy. Still, the central issue he pursues in the book is the question of how DNA evidence has managed to assume its current aura of infallibility, as evidence which is somehow uniquely objective and "true": how it has …
Confrontation After Crawford, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation After Crawford, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The following edit excerpt, drawn from "The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted and Transformed," 2003-04 Cato Supreme Court Review 439 (2004), by Law School Professor Richard D. Friedman, discusses the impact, effects, and questions generated by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington last year that a defendant is entitled to confront and cross-examine any testimonial statement presented against him. In Crawford, the defendant, charged with attacking another man with a knife, contested the trial court's admission of a tape-recorded statement his wife made to police without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine. The tiral court admitted the statement, and …
Testimonial Or Nontestimonial? The Admissibility Of Forensic Evidence After Crawford V. Washington, John M. Spires
Testimonial Or Nontestimonial? The Admissibility Of Forensic Evidence After Crawford V. Washington, John M. Spires
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Punishment Decisions At Conviction: Recognizing The Jury As Fault-Finder, Michael T. Cahill
Punishment Decisions At Conviction: Recognizing The Jury As Fault-Finder, Michael T. Cahill
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
An Evidentiary Paradox: Defending The Character Evidence Prohibition By Upholding A Non-Character Theory Of Logical Relevance, The Doctrine Of Chances, Edward J. Imwinkelried
An Evidentiary Paradox: Defending The Character Evidence Prohibition By Upholding A Non-Character Theory Of Logical Relevance, The Doctrine Of Chances, Edward J. Imwinkelried
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crawford’S Impact On Hearsay Statements In Domestic Violence And Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Robert P. Mosteller
Crawford’S Impact On Hearsay Statements In Domestic Violence And Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay examines the important ancillary doctrines that need to be developed in the wake of Crawford v. Washington (2004) and the "testimonial statement" approach to Confrontation Clause analysis to ensure that when confrontation is provided it in fact satisfies the requirements of the Clause. More than just some opportunity to cross-examine is required. The witness must be asked to make a public accusation in his or her direct testimony rather than simply being made available for questioning by defense counsel. A public accusation in not simply an after-thought of the right; rather, both it and cross-examination are central components. …
Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …
Grappling With The Meaning Of 'Testimonial', Richard D. Friedman
Grappling With The Meaning Of 'Testimonial', Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington, has adopted a testimonial approach to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Under this approach, a statement that is deemed to be testimonial in nature may not be introduced at trial against an accused unless he has had an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement and that person is unavailable to testify at trial. If a statement is not deemed to be testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause poses little if any obstacle to its admission.2 A great deal therefore now rides on the meaning of the word "testimonial."
An Exceptional Case: How Washington Should Amend Its Procedure For Imposing An Exceptional Sentence In Response To Blakely V. Washington, Jason Amala, Jason Laurine
An Exceptional Case: How Washington Should Amend Its Procedure For Imposing An Exceptional Sentence In Response To Blakely V. Washington, Jason Amala, Jason Laurine
Seattle University Law Review
This article reviews the Blakely decision and the Washington Legislature's response in S.B. 5477. Part II discusses the problem that Blakely created for Washington's sentencing guidelines system. Part III analyzes the judicial advisory and bifurcated trial proposals and explains why Washington wisely adopted the bifurcated trial approach. Part IV identifies key issues that are raised by using a bifurcated trial and analyzes how S.B. 5477 addresses, or fails to address, those issues. Finally, Part V concludes by suggesting that the legislature should have provided for the following in its bill responding to the Blakely decision: a provision allowing bifurcation for …
Deviance, Due Process, And The False Promise Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Aviva A. Orenstein
Deviance, Due Process, And The False Promise Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Aviva A. Orenstein
Articles by Maurer Faculty
In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 (concerning rape and child abuse, respectively) allow jurors to use the accused's prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Courts have rejected due process challenges to the new rules, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 serves as a check on any fairness concerns. However, courts' application of Rule 403 in cases involving these sexual propensity rules is troubling. Relying on the legislative history of the new rules and announcing a presumption of admissibility, courts have forsaken the traditional operation of …
Standard Of Review For Prosecutorial Use Of Race Evidence During Trial, Peter Chung
Standard Of Review For Prosecutorial Use Of Race Evidence During Trial, Peter Chung
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that unfettered use of cultural evidence by prosecutors creates the same problems as would the use of evidence of race to show propensity of the accused to act. Using Wisconsin v. Chu as a case study, the author demonstrates that cultural evidence, just as any other evidence to show propensity to act, must rest upon the proper evidentiary foundation and that prosecutors must be sharply constrained in their use of cultural evidence.
Wrongful Convictions: It Is Time To Take Prosecution Discipline Seriously, Ellen Yaroshefsky
Wrongful Convictions: It Is Time To Take Prosecution Discipline Seriously, Ellen Yaroshefsky
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
Ron Williamson, who came within five days of execution, and Dennis Fritz, who served twelve years of a life sentence, were released from prison in 1999. They were innocent men, wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of Debra Carter. Arrested five years after her murder and tried separately, the cases against them rested on testimony of a jailhouse informant, a jail trainee, and unreliable hair evidence. Fortunately, there was DNA evidence in the case, and scientific testing exonerated Fritz and Williamson. The evidence instead implicated Glen Gore, the person who should have been the prime suspect. Many of these …
Forecasting Harm: The Law And Science Of Risk Assessment Among Prisoners, Predators, And Patients, John Monahan
Forecasting Harm: The Law And Science Of Risk Assessment Among Prisoners, Predators, And Patients, John Monahan
ExpressO
Scientifically valid instruments are being used for the first time to assess an individual’s risk of violence in criminal sentencing and in the civil commitment of mental patients and sexual predators. Risk factors on these instruments pertain to what the person is (e.g., gender), what the person has (e.g., personality disorder), what the person has done (e.g., past violence), and what has been done to the person (e.g., past victimization). In this Article, I argue that in criminal law, with its emphasis on blameworthiness for actions taken, the admissibility of scientifically valid risk factors is properly constrained to those that …
“Which One Of You Did It?” Criminal Liability For “Causing Or Allowing” The Death Of A Child, Lissa Griffin
“Which One Of You Did It?” Criminal Liability For “Causing Or Allowing” The Death Of A Child, Lissa Griffin
ExpressO
No abstract provided.
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …
Recent Evaluative Research On Jury Trial Innovations, B. Michael Dann, Valerie P. Hans
Recent Evaluative Research On Jury Trial Innovations, B. Michael Dann, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
During the past decade, state jury reform commissions, many individual federal and state judges, and jury scholars have advocated the adoption of a variety of innovative trial procedures to assist jurors in trials. Many jury trial reforms reflect growing awareness of best practices in education and communication as well as research documenting that jurors take an active rather than a passive approach to their decision-making task. Traditional adversary jury trial procedures often appear to assume that jurors are blank slates, who will passively wait until the end of the trial and the start of jury deliberations to form opinions about …
The Central Park Five, The Scottsboro Boys, And The Myth Of The Bestial Black Man, N. Jeremi Duru
The Central Park Five, The Scottsboro Boys, And The Myth Of The Bestial Black Man, N. Jeremi Duru
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Pleas For Dna Testing: Why Lawmakers Should Amend State Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes To Apply To Prisoners Who Pled Guilty, Daina Borteck
Pleas For Dna Testing: Why Lawmakers Should Amend State Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes To Apply To Prisoners Who Pled Guilty, Daina Borteck
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Thin Line Between Concurrence And Dissent: Rehabilitating Sex Offenders In The Wake Of Mckune V. Lile, Seth A. Grossman
A Thin Line Between Concurrence And Dissent: Rehabilitating Sex Offenders In The Wake Of Mckune V. Lile, Seth A. Grossman
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Remaining Silent: A Right With Consequences, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 649 (2004), Jeffrey D. Waltuck
Remaining Silent: A Right With Consequences, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 649 (2004), Jeffrey D. Waltuck
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Central Park Five, The Scottsboro Boys, And The Myth Of The Bestial Black Man, N. Jeremi Duru
The Central Park Five, The Scottsboro Boys, And The Myth Of The Bestial Black Man, N. Jeremi Duru
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
No abstract provided.
Ake V. Oklahoma: The Right To Expert Assistance In A Post-Daubert, Post-Dna World, Paul C. Giannelli
Ake V. Oklahoma: The Right To Expert Assistance In A Post-Daubert, Post-Dna World, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
Although securing the services of defense experts to examine evidence, to advise counsel, and to testify at trial is frequently critical in modern criminal litigation, it was not until 1985 that the United States Supreme Court in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), recognized, for the first time, a constitutional right to expert assistance. In a system in which an overwhelming majority of criminal defendants are indigent, Ake was a landmark case. Nevertheless, the Ake Court could not have anticipated how the advent of DNA evidence would revolutionize forensic science or how the Daubert trilogy would alter the judicial …
Crying Wolf Or An Excited Utterance - Allowing Reexcited Statements To Qualify Under The Excited Utterance Exception, Jone Tran
Cleveland State Law Review
It is clear that the reexcitement analysis has both benefits and detriments. Reexcitement may be a basis for admission of evidence in cases where the danger of influencing during the calm period is somehow obviated-as in the recent Crawford opinion. Because of the heightened danger of undue influence in reexcitement cases, the courts should require corroborating evidence that the declarant did not confide in anyone during the intervening period of calm, to reduce the chance of outside pressures and influences. Congress should provide an amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly allowing for reexcitement, but also requiring either physical …
Lingering Questions Of A Supreme Court Decision: The Confines Of The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Jennifer L. Odrobina
Lingering Questions Of A Supreme Court Decision: The Confines Of The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Jennifer L. Odrobina
Cleveland State Law Review
The United States Supreme Court "in light of [its] reason and experience"' has recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Court has, however, left lingering questions for the lower courts to determine regarding possible exceptions to the privilege. The lower courts have used their own reason and experience to develop exceptions to the privilege. Such exceptions include the crime-fraud exception, waiver exception, and the dangerous-patient exception. Inevitably other exceptions will follow. The Supreme Court should recognize a dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege to allow a psychotherapist to testify in court when there is "a serious threat of harm to the …
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court radically transformed its doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Craitiord is a very positive development, restoring to its central position one of the basic protections of the common law system of criminal justice. But the decision leaves many open questions, and all lawyers involved in the criminal justice process will have to adjust to the new regime that it creates. This article outlines and summarizes the problems with the law as it stood before Crait/brd. It then explains the theoretical …