Law Commons^™

Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court once again has the opportunity to grapple with the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendmel).t. The basic facts of Lilly are simple, for they present the ageold problem of accomplice confessions. Three men, Gary Barker and Ben and Mark Lilly, went on a crime spree, during which one of them shot to death a young man they had robbed and kidnaped. Ben Lilly was charged with being the triggerman, and Barker testified to that effect at Ben's trial. Mark did not testify. But Mark had made a statement to the …

Confrontation Confronted, Richard D. Friedman, Margaret A. Berger, Steven R. Shapiro

Articles

The following article is an edited version of the amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1998, in the case of Benjamin Lee Lilly v. Commonwealth of Virginia (No. 98-5881). "This case raises important questions about the meaning of the confrontation clause, which has been a vital ingredient of the fair trial right for hundreds of years," Professor Richard Friedman and his co-authors say. "In particular, this case presents the Court with an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between the confrontation clause and the law of hearsay." On June 10 the …

Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Criminal Discovery: What Truth Do We Seek?, Milton C. Lee Jr.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to be confronted with the Witnesses against him."' The Confrontation Clause clearly applies to those witnesses who testify against the accused at trial. Moreover, it is clear enough that confrontation ordinarily includes the accused's right to have those witnesses brought "face-toface," in the time-honored phrase, when they testify.2 But confrontation is much more than this "face-to-face" right. It also comprehends the right to have witnesses give their testimony under oath and to subject them to crossexamination. 3 Indeed, the Supreme Court has treated the accused's …

Confrontation Clause, Court Of Appeals: People V. Ortiz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Truth And Its Rivals In The Law Of Hearsay And Confrontation (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law)." , Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this paper, I will look at the problem of hearsay and confrontation through the lens offered by this symposium's theme of "truth and its rivals." I will ask: To what extent does the law of hearsay and confrontation aspire to achieve the goal of truth in litigation? To what extent does it, or should it, seek to achieve other goals, or to satisfy other constraints on the litigation system? And, given the ends that it seeks to achieve, what should the shape of the law in this area be? My principal conclusions are as follows: In most settings, the …

Confrontation And The Definition Of Chutzpa, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

You may know the standard illustration of chutzpa - the man who kills both his parents and then begs the sentencing court to have mercy on an orphan. In this article, I discuss a case of chutzpa that is nearly as outlandish - the criminal defendant who, having rendered his victim unavailable to testify, contends that evidence of the victim's statement should not be admitted against him because to do so would violate his right to confront her. I contend that in a case like this the defendant should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right. On the same …

Bouncing "Checkbook Journalism": A Balance Between The First And Sixth Amendments In High-Profile Criminal Cases, James R. Cady

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Legislation recently enacted in California attempts to preserve further the right of the accused to a fair trial and the integrity of judicial proceedings by allowing criminal prosecution of jurors and witnesses who would enter agreements for or accept payment, benefit, or other consideration in exchange for information pertaining to criminal trials. This note analyzes the constitutionality of this legislation through an evaluation and a balancing of the rights and interests of the accused, the jurors, the witnesses, the press, and the public implicated in criminal trials. Despite supporting compelling governmental interests, certain portions of the statutes are too broad, …

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …

Introduction: Taking The Stand, Barbara A. Babcock

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

1992 Criminal Law Legislative Update, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Silence: Should Jurors Be Allowed To Question Witnesses During Trial?, Jeffrey S. Berkowitz

Vanderbilt Law Review

The above line of questioning destroyed the defendant's chance of being acquitted. Surprisingly, however, the questions that sealed the defendant's fate were raised by a juror after the prosecutor had failed to elicit the devastating facts.'

The notion of allowing jurors to question witnesses during a trial is not a novel one, but the governmental entities responsible for supervising the court system never have encouraged the practice.' As a result, juror questioning is not widespread.' This situation, however, may be changing. During 1989 judges in at least thirty states, including New York, California, and Connecticut, agreed to conduct the first …

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Prosecutor's Obligation To Grant Defense Witness Immunity, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The author enumerates the three most common situations in which the courts have required the prosecutor to offer immunity to defense witnesses: (1) to safeguard the defendant's right to essential exculpatory testimony; (2) where the use of the prosecutor's powers to grant immunity causes such distortion in the fact-finding process as to require granting immunity to defense witnesses; and (3) where immunity is required to remedy prosecutory misconduct such as the intimidation of witnesses. The use of the "missing witness" instruction to avoid reaching the constitutional issue is also discussed.

Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View, Paula E. Hill, Samuel M. Hill

Michigan Law Review

Increases in the number of reported incidents of child abuse and sexual molestation have resulted in more and younger children becoming courtroom participants. Some courts refuse to consider the special needs of the child in this adversarial environment. Relying on questionable precedent, these courts hold that the defendant's right to directly confront the child, as well as strict compliance with evidentiary rules, overrides that child's interest in freedom from embarrassment or psychological trauma. This Note focuses on pressures felt by the testifying child and the ways in which these pressures affect her testimony; it then proposes using videotaped testimony as …

Loss Of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification And Proof Of Guilt, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

It is no news that eyewitness identification in criminal cases is a problem; it is an old and famous problem. Judges and lawyers have long known that the identification of strangers is a chancy matter, and nearly a century of psychological research has confirmed this skeptical view. In 1967 the Supreme Court attempted to mitigate the problem by regulating the use of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials; since then it has retreated part way from that effort. Legal scholars have written a small library of books and articles on this problem, the courts' response to it, and various proposed …

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach Criminal Defendants - Do The Risks Outweigh The Benefits?, James W. Betro

Antioch Law Journal

The use of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant-witness is generally accepted in most American jurisdictions.'Such evidence is allowed in order to present the jury with the general character of a witness so that they may be better able to decide as to his or her tendency to lie on the witness stand.2 The rationale behind this rule is based on the theory that a witness who has been previously convicted of a crime may be less likely to tell the truth than someone who has never been convicted.3 Unfortunately, when a criminal defendant takes the …

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

I Cannot Tell A Lie: The Standard For New Trial In False Testimony Cases, Daniel Wolf

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the question of what standard should be used for granting a new trial when a defendant's conviction is alleged to have been based, at least in part, on false testimony. Part I demonstrates the failure of the existing standards to strike a satisfactory balance between defendants' rights and the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Part II argues that motions for retrial based upon false testimony should be governed by a standard drawn not only from newly discovered evidence cases generally, but also from cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Part III suggests that the proper test …

The Prosecutorial Perspective: The Victim And Witness Protection Act Of 1982, William A. Kolibash

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Compulsory Process Ii, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the …

Hearsay And Confrontation: Can The Criminal Defendant's Rights Be Preserved Under A Bifurcated Standard?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Compulsory Process Clause, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article traces the history of compulsory process, from its origin in the English transition from an inquisitional to an adversary system of procedure to its eventual adoption in the American Bill of Rights. Part II examines the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Washington v. Texas, which recognized after a century and a half of silence that the compulsory process clause was designed to enable the defendant not only to produce witnesses, but to put them on the stand and have them heard. Part III studies the implications of compulsory process for the defendant's case, from the …