Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Cross-examination (2)
- Testimony (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Brady claims (1)
-
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Criminal justice system (1)
- Criminal penalties (1)
- Due process (1)
- Exculpatory evidence (1)
- Extrinsic evidence (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Felonies (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Habeas review (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- Police (1)
- Police misconduct (1)
- Postconviction challenges (1)
- Prior inconsistent statements (1)
- Prosecutorial misconduct (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Rule in Queen Caroline's Case (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing hearings (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Testimonial statements (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …
Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy
Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
A defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are violated when a state agency fails to disclose crucial exculpatory or impeachment evidence — so-called Brady violations. When this happens, the defendant should be provided the means not only to locate this evidence, but also to fully develop it in state post-conviction processes. When the state system prohibits both the means and legal mechanism to develop Brady claims, the defendant should be immune to any procedural penalties in either state or federal court. In other words, the defendant should not be required to return to state court to exhaust such a claim. …
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …