Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- Testimony (2)
- Witnesses (2)
-
- Crimes (1)
- DNA (1)
- DNA evidence (1)
- DNA identification (1)
- Estimates (1)
- Forensics (1)
- Forfeiture (1)
- Genetics (1)
- Intimidation (1)
- Law professors (1)
- Law school deans (1)
- McDaniel v. Brown (1)
- Mitigation (1)
- Northwestern University Law School (1)
- Pro se defendants (1)
- Probability (1)
- Publications (1)
- Scholarship (1)
- Technology (1)
- Treatises (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Victims (1)
- Wigmore (John Henry) (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …
"False But Highly Persuasive": How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye
"False But Highly Persuasive": How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In McDaniel v. Brown, the Supreme Court will review the use of DNA evidence in a 1994 trial for sexual assault and attempted murder. The Court granted certiorari to consider two procedural issues—the standard of federal postconviction review of a state jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's decision to allow the prisoner to supplement the record of trials, appeals, and state postconviction proceedings with a geneticist's letter twelve years after the trial. The letter from Laurence Mueller, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, identified two obvious mistakes in the state's expert testimony. …
John Henry Wigmore, Richard D. Friedman
John Henry Wigmore, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
Wigmore, John Henry (1863-1943). Law professor and dean. Wigmore was born and reared in San Francisco. His parents were both immigrants, his mother from England and his father, of English heritage, from Ireland. Harry, as he was known familiarly, was the oldest and most favored of his extraordinarily doting mother's seven children. The family was prosperous - his father had an importing business - and Harry was educated principally in private schools. He then attended Harvard College, prompting the mother to move the family to Massachusetts to be close to him. After graduating in 1883, he spent a brief interlude …
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …