Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (Law) (9)
- Expert evidence (5)
- Administration of criminal justice (4)
- Eyewitness identification (4)
- Admissible evidence (3)
-
- Criminal procedure (3)
- Disclosure of information--Law and legislation (3)
- Discovery (Law) (3)
- Judicial error (3)
- Witnesses (3)
- Confidential communications--Lawyers (2)
- Electronic evidence (2)
- Face perception (2)
- Fair trial (2)
- False testimony (2)
- Hearsay evidence (2)
- Judicial process (2)
- Jury (2)
- Law--Interpretation and construction (2)
- Post-conviction remedies (2)
- Right of privacy (2)
- Truthfulness and falsehood (2)
- Artificial intelligence (1)
- Confession (Law) (1)
- Consciousness (1)
- Constitution. 5th Amendment (1)
- Constitution. 6th Amendment (1)
- Copyright infringement (1)
- Copyright--Music (1)
- Cost effectiveness (1)
Articles 31 - 44 of 44
Full-Text Articles in Law
Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley
Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller
Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
This essay focuses on the limits of deception practiced before the suspect waives his or her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In Miranda, the Court stated: [A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the suspect did not voluntarily waive his privilege. The quotation appears to forbid any evidence of threats, tricks, or cajolery, which contributes to a waiver of the privilege, creating a per se exclusion. However, in Moran v. Burbine (1986), the Court shifts focus away from the nature of the police conduct to its effect on …
Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.
Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: “A Little Child Shall Lead Them”, Robert P. Mosteller
Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: “A Little Child Shall Lead Them”, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court radically transformed the analysis of the Confrontation Clause for hearsay, but left many specific questions unanswered. Two years later in Davis v. Washington (2006), it revisited the subject and answered a few of the unresolved issues, but again left much in doubt, apparently reorienting the focus of the testimonial definition from that of the party making the statement to that of the person receiving it. One of the areas where the new doctrine has greatest potential importance is in cases involving children, particularly cases involving physical and sexual abuse. The importance derives …
Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller
Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller
The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster - a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it …
Case Comment, Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, Curtis A. Bradley
Case Comment, Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Evidence History, The New Trace Evidence And Rumblings In The Future Of Proof, Robert P. Mosteller
Evidence History, The New Trace Evidence And Rumblings In The Future Of Proof, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
This paper is in two parts. The first part is about developments in the rules of evidence and particularly about developments in the federal rules of evidence, which has had a major impact on evidence rules in many states. This part turns out to be largely about the past because my sense is that the impact of changes in the formal rules of evidence, which were substantial, are largely historic. To be sure future changes in the formal rules, particularly those that may be made as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004) that dramatically …
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 V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witnesses, Robert P. Mosteller
Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witnesses, Robert P. Mosteller
Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the United States Supreme Court radically altered Confrontation Clause analysis for the admission of hearsay statements. It created a very firm rule of actual confrontation for a narrowed class of covered hearsay, termed “testimonial statements,” and created only a limited number of exceptions. This new regime differed dramatically from the trustworthiness/reliability mode of analysis of Ohio v. Roberts (1980), which provided very wide but incredibly shallow protection against the admission of hearsay offered by the prosecution against the defendant. This article analyzes the basic teachings and uncertainties left in the wake of Crawford, sifting through …
“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, …
Gaining/Losing Perspective On The Law, Or Keeping Digital Evidence In Perspective, Christopher J. Buccafusco
Gaining/Losing Perspective On The Law, Or Keeping Digital Evidence In Perspective, Christopher J. Buccafusco
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Impeachment And Rehabilitation Under The Maryland Rules Of Evidence: An Attorney's Guide, Paul W. Grimm
Impeachment And Rehabilitation Under The Maryland Rules Of Evidence: An Attorney's Guide, Paul W. Grimm
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Evidence: Prior Crimes And Prior Bad Acts Evidence, Paul W. Grimm
Evidence: Prior Crimes And Prior Bad Acts Evidence, Paul W. Grimm
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.