Law Commons^™

A Jurisprudence Of Doubt: Missouri V. Seibert, United States V. Patane, And The Supreme Court's Continued Confusion About The Constitutional Status Of Miranda, Johnathan L. Rogers

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rule In Hodge's Case: Rumours Of Its Death Are Greatly Exaggerated, Benjamin Berger

Articles & Book Chapters

Certain academic commentators and Canadian courts have announced the death of the rule in Hodge's Case. The author challenges this proclamation of death, observing that Hodge's rule is a particular manifestation of the epistemology that informs our law of evidence. He argues not only that the rule is doctrinally intact, but that the principles and spirit that animate Hodge's rule have broad influence in our law of evidence and have utility in the appellate review of unreasonable verdicts. Hodge's rule, Hodge-like reasoning, and the associated epistemology, are alive and well in Canada.

Summary Of Jezdik V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 15, Brian Reeve

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case involves allegations regarding fraudulent use of a credit card and identity theft. Appellant Michael Jezdik (“Jezdik”) and the victim in this case, Anna Behran (“Behran”), met in Las Vegas in early 1997. They enjoyed a brief romantic relationship but soon parted ways. Approximately three years later, however, Jezdik and Behran rekindled their friendship. Behran told Jezdik that she wanted to purchase a home but did not know how to do so. Jezdik offered to help Behran complete an online mortgage application at his residence. Behran agreed. Throughout the mortgage applicatiosn process, Jezdik acquired access to Behran’s social security …

Testimonial Or Nontestimonial? The Admissibility Of Forensic Evidence After Crawford V. Washington, John M. Spires

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Grappling With The Meaning Of 'Testimonial', Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington, has adopted a testimonial approach to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Under this approach, a statement that is deemed to be testimonial in nature may not be introduced at trial against an accused unless he has had an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement and that person is unavailable to testify at trial. If a statement is not deemed to be testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause poses little if any obstacle to its admission.2 A great deal therefore now rides on the meaning of the word "testimonial."

Confrontation After Crawford, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The following edit excerpt, drawn from "The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted and Transformed," 2003-04 Cato Supreme Court Review 439 (2004), by Law School Professor Richard D. Friedman, discusses the impact, effects, and questions generated by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington last year that a defendant is entitled to confront and cross-examine any testimonial statement presented against him. In Crawford, the defendant, charged with attacking another man with a knife, contested the trial court's admission of a tape-recorded statement his wife made to police without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine. The tiral court admitted the statement, and …

Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, And Judicial Gatekeeping, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

In the last decade, a number of scientists have published articles and testified in court, explaining the ways in which they believe that some of the forensic sciences do not meet reliability standards and that laboratories make errors. The explosion of exonerations resulting from DNA technology has raised questions about the accuracy of many forensic sciences and the quality of some laboratory testing. A substantial number of these defendants can point to erroneous forensic science as a contributing cause of their wrongful convictions. In the courts, increasingly, the parties have substantial and serious disagreements about the quality of forensic science. …

How The Confrontation Clause Defeated The Rape Shield Statute: Acquaintance Rape, The Consent Defense And The Nj Supreme Court's Ruling In State V. Garron, James B. Johnston

James B Johnston

Rape shield statutes are designed to limit a judge's discretion in allowing information about a rape victim's sexual past into evidence at trial. This is done to prevent dual victimization of the rape victim. First during the rape and then at trial. Despite rape shield protections the NJ Supreme Court ruled in State v. Garron that a victim's prior flirtations with the attacker, some of which occurred 6 years before the rape was admissible. The court overturned the attacker's guilty verdict and he went free. Advocates for rape victims rights were outraged. This article provides an analysis and critique of …

Njc Deskbook On Evidence For Administrative Law Judges, Chris Mcneil

Christopher B. McNeil, J.D., Ph.D.

Provides summaries of frequently-encountered evidence rules, with checklists for ALJs and others working in administrative adjudications.

8. Speaking With Children: Advice From Investigative Interviewers., Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon