Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro
Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
This paper discusses how attorneys can argue against having government and public reports admitted into evidence at trial that would be damaging to their client. When this paper was done, such reports were admitted via Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). The authors argue that it is possible to challenge admission of factual findings in public reports despite various court decisions which make this difficult.
Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt
Commentary By Co-Defendant's Counsel On Defendant's Refusal To Testify: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Martin D. Litt
Michigan Law Review
Currently, the circuits are divided on whether comments by co-defendants' counsel on a defendant's silence impair that defendant's fifth amendment rights. Furthermore, among the circuits that regard such commentary as potentially prejudicial, disagreement exists over the proper test for identifying such comments. This Note asserts that the risk of prejudicing a defendant's fifth amendment rights is too great to allow counsel any comment on a defendant's decision to testify or to remain silent.
Part I of this Note examines the historical evolution of the privilege against self-incrimination and the policy goals behind the privilege. The Note argues that prohibiting comments …
Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Bennett L. Gershman
Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The author considers the two principal types of improper judicial behavior that may occur during the jury deliberation process. Judicial conduct that attempts to place undue pressure on a jury to reach a verdict may include verdict-urging instructions, threats and intimidation, and inquiry into the numerical division of the jury on the merits of the verdict. Judicial participation in private, ex parte communications with jurors may also subvert orderly trial procedure and undermine the impartiality of the jury. Neither kind of judicial conduct may be allowed to compel a verdict from a jury.
A Miracle, A Universe: Settling Accounts With Torturers, Juan E. Mendez
A Miracle, A Universe: Settling Accounts With Torturers, Juan E. Mendez
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.