Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Overenforcement, Alex Stein, Richard Bierschbach
Overenforcement, Alex Stein, Richard Bierschbach
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank
Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
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.
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 …
Purpose As A Guide To The Interpretation Of The Confrontation Clause, Roger C. Park
Purpose As A Guide To The Interpretation Of The Confrontation Clause, Roger C. Park
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’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. …