Digital Commons Network^™

Hearsay, Confrontation, And Forfeiture By Wrongdoing: Crawford V. Washington, A Reassessment Of The Confrontation Clause, Paul W. Grimm, Jerome E. Deise Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Use Of Secret Evidence By Government Lawyers: Balancing Defendants' Rights With National Security Concerns, Tracy L. Conn

Cleveland State Law Review

The ability to use secret evidence in trials involving national security matters is an extremely controversial power of the government lawyer. Although the use of secret evidence was a divisive issue before September 11, 2001, the terrorist attacks that day sparked the passage of new legislation that increased the power of the government lawyer to use classified evidence. By examining the cases involving secret evidence both before and after September 11, in particular the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, it becomes apparent that what is at stake is the appropriate balance between national security concerns and the constitutional rights of defendants. …

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.’’ …

Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception. This article argues that this framework should be abandoned. The clause should not be regarded …

Justice Still Fails: A Review Of Recent Efforts To Compensate Individuals Who Have Been Unjustly Convicted And Later Exonerated, Adele Bernhard

Articles & Chapters

With this Article, I hope to motivate state legislators to enact responsible, practical compensation statutes and encourage courts to entertain state law and civil rights claims brought by those who have been unjustly convicted and later exonerated. I begin by looking at the reasons for enacting compensation statutes: uniformity, practicality, popular support, and fairness. Next, I dissect the arguments raised by opponents. Finally, I turn to recent judicial decisions hinting that courts may be stepping in where legislatures fear to tread.

Face To Face With The Right Of Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

This article is an edited excerpt from the amicus curiae brief filed in Crawford v. Washington, heard before the United States Supreme Court on November 10, 2003. Prof. Friedman wrote the brief for the Court.

True To Character: Honoring The Intellectual Foundations Of The Character Evidence Rule In Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article calls for a new character evidence rule allowing the admission of prior acts of abuse within the context of a current domestic violence prosecution. Section II discusses the history of domestic violence in America and explores the three ways that the law has condoned domestic violence, including implicit sanction through the effect of the character evidence rule. Section III examines the intellectual background of the character evidence ban. This section also explores the conflict between the character evidence rule and the law's recognition of domestic violence. Further, Section III demonstrates how the character evidence ban violates its underlying …

Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt

Michigan Law Review

It is often said that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants, defense counsel, and insurers worry that statements of apology will be admissible at trial and will be interpreted by jurors and judges as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, several legal commentators have suggested that disputants in civil lawsuits should be encouraged to apologize to opposing parties. They claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that are intended to encourage and protect apologies by making them inadmissible. In addition, some commentators argue that defendants might …

Life Sciences, Technology, And The Law - Symosium Transcript - March 7, 2003, Philip R. Reilly, David H. Kaye, Jonathan J. Koehler, Richard O. Lempert

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Life sciences, Technology, and the Law Symposium held at the University of Michigan Law School Friday, March 7, 2003

Crawford V. Washington: Motion For Leave To File And Brief Amicus Curiae Of Law Professors Sherman J. Clark, James J. Duane, Richard D. Friedman, Norman Garland, Gary M. Maveal, Bridget Mccormack, David A. Moran, Christopher B. Mueller, And Roger C. Park, In Support Of Petitioner, Sherman J. Clark, Richard D. Friedman, David A. Moran

Appellate Briefs

This case raises important questions about the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which is a central aspect of our criminal justice system. In particular, the second Question Presented in the petition for certiorari suggests that the currently prevailing framework of doctrine under the Clause be reconsidered, to be replaced by one limiting the scope of the Clause to statements that are testimonial in nature but prescribing unequivocally that such statements may not be introduced against an accused unless he has had an opportunity to confront the maker of the statement. Amici are law …

Danger At The Edge Of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior In A Post-Daubert World, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Life After Death Row: Preventing Wrongful Capital Convictions And Restoring Innocence After Exoneration, Jean C. Blackerby

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court overturned its ruling in Furman v. Georgia and held that the death penalty, as administered by the states, was not per se "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.' Yet errors continue to occur at an alarming rate in the capital punishment system-over one hundred death row inmates have been released pursuant to evidence of actual innocence since 1973. Indeed, the number of death row exonerations has been steadily increasing in recent years.

Of those exonerations, DNA testing played a substantial role in twelve. Many more have benefited from the …

Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …

Misuse Of Scientific Evidence By Prosecutors, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The prosecutor's misuse of scientific evidence to charge and convict has not been sufficiently examined. Courts and commentators critiquing abuses of scientific evidence in criminal cases rarely focus on the prosecutor's role in the process. Issues typically discussed are the questionable nature of the evidence, the controversial manner in which the evidence was acquired and tested, whether the expert arrived at her conclusions in a scientifically reliable manner, and whether the expert's courtroom testimony was false or misleading. The prosecutor's control over and manipulation of the scientific evidence to shape the fact-finder's evaluation of the facts and to persuade the …

Tracking The Circulatory Of Confession Jurisprudence After Massiah & (And) Miranda: Can A Superficial Application Of Property Law Make Sense Out Of Nonsense?, Rory Bahadur

St. Thomas Law Review

After Miranda v. Arizona and Massiah v. United States, there were arguably three doctrinally separate methodologies for determining the admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings. The interaction of these three doctrines has generated a complex, contradictory, somewhat inexplicable, and chaotic jurisprudence. This paper re-examines the post- Miranda interaction of the three doctrines, and argues that basic property law provides a conceptual framework for reconciling what appears to be an otherwise arbitrary and unpalatable collection of Supreme Court decisions. Section one briefly examines the totality of the circumstances test and the Miranda and Massiah decisions themselves, not from the standpoint of …

Fifteen Years After The Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective And Just Narcotics Sentencing Perspectives On The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And Mandatory Sentencing, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

Federal criminal sentencing has changed dramatically since 1988. Fifteen years ago, judges determined if and for how long a defendant would go to jail. Since that time, changes in substantive federal criminal statutes, particularly the passage of an array of mandatory minimum penalties and the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines, have limited significantly judicial sentencing power and have remade federal sentencing and federal criminal practice. The results of these changes are significantly longer federal prison sentences, as was the intent of these reforms, and the emergence of federal prosecutors as the key players in sentencing. Yet, at the same …

A Unilateral Hope: Reliance On The Clemency Process As A Trigger For A Right Of Access To State-Held Dna Evidence, Ryan Dietrich

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Book Chapters

Most research that has attempted to predict verdict preferences on the basis of stable juror characteristics, such as attitudes and personality traits, has found that individual differences among jurors are not very useful predictors, accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in verdict choices. Some commentators have therefore concluded that verdicts are overwhelmingly accounted for by "the weight of the evidence," and that differences among jurors have negligible effects. But there is a paradox here: In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986; Hastie, Penrod, …

Revoking Our Privileges: Federal Law Enforcement's Multi-Front Assault On The Attorney-Client Privilege (And Why It Is Misguided), Lance Cole

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Trials And Tribulations: Science In The Law, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Reliability And The Admissibility Of Experts, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Modern law on expert testimony insists, as a condition of admissibility, that the asserted expertise be determined by the trial judge to be reliable. Reliability is usually characterized as a dichotomous attribute of evidence, as if expertise were either reliable or unreliable. This article argues that making progress in the development of meaningful and appropriate restrictions on the admissibility of expert testimony requires that we abandon this conceptualization and understand the implications of endorsing a gradational notion of reliability in which evidence can be more or less reliable and in which a comparative assessment of reliability is prominent. Consistent with …

Danger At The Edge Of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior In A Post-Daubert World, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Ril

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Dna Identification Databases: Legality, Legitimacy, And The Case For Population-Wide Coverage, David H. Kaye, Michael E. Smith

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past decade, law enforcement authorities have amassed huge collections of DNA samples and the identifying profiles derived from them. Large DNA databanks routinely help to identify the guilty and to exonerate the innocent, but as the databanks grow, so do fears about civil liberties. Perhaps the most controversial policy issue in the creation of these databases is the question of coverage: Whose DNA profiles should be stored in them? The possibilities extend from convicted violent sex offenders to all convicted felons, to everyone arrested, to the entire population. This Article questions the rationales for drawing the line at …

Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this essay, I will offer some thoughts on how we might reframe the issues governing the admissibility of expert evidence. My principal focus is not on any particular type of expert evidence but on broader questions: the extent to which we ought to rely on rulings of admissibility, the standards that should govern admissibility rulings, and the role of the trial and appellate courts in making those rulings. To some extent, I will concentrate on the context of criminal cases, but for the most part my conclusions apply in both civil and criminal litigation. Here are my conclusions: First, …

Miranda's Demise, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Miranda v. Arizona has been a prominent fixture of the American criminal justice system, as well as police television shows and movies, for more than a third of a century. And when, amid considerable fanfare, the Supreme Court in June 2000 announced its decision in Dickerson v. United States, it appeared that Miranda would retain that status for the foreseeable future. In Dickerson, a surprisingly large 7–2 majority settled a long-standing debate about the constitutional legitimacy of Miranda, holding that the Miranda rules are firmly grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause.

But now, a mere three …

Wrongful Convictions And The Accuracy Of The Criminal Justice System, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Can Fingerprints Lie?: Re-Weighing Fingerprint Evidence In Criminal Jury Trials, Tamara F. Lawson

Articles

This article discusses fingerprint evidence and its use in criminal jury trials. It is commonly thought that fingerprints "never lie"; however, this article reveals the little known fact that the "science" of fingerprint identification has never been empirically tested or proven to be reliable. It further exposes the seldom-discussed issue of fingerprint misidentification and latent print examiner error. The article explains the importance of fingerprint evidence and its extensive use in all phases of the criminal justice system. Specifically, the article plays out the dramatic courtroom scenario of incriminating fingerprints being found at a crime scene and matching the accused …

Inquiry And Advocacy, Fallibilism And Finality: Culture And Inference In Science And The Law, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

On June 9, by granting certiorari in Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410, the Supreme Court signaled its intention to enter once again into the realm of the Confrontation Clause, in which it has found itself deeply perplexed. This time there was a difference, however, because the grant indicated that the Court might be willing to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Crawford, like Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), presents a classic case of what might be called station-house testimony. Michael Crawford was accused of stabbing another man. His wife, Sylvia, was …

In Defense Of The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule (Law And Truth - The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium On Law And Public Policy - 2002), Yale Kamisar

Articles

think Dean Pye's advice about casebook writing was sound,6 and what he had to say also applies to discussions and debates about such issues as the search and seizure exclusionary rule. We cannot (at least we should not) begin with Mapp v. Ohio. We need a prelude.