Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Seattle University Law Review
There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …
Balancing The Right To Confrontation And The Need To Protect Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Are Statutes Authorizing Televised Testimony Serving Their Purpose?, Kimberley Seals Bressler
Balancing The Right To Confrontation And The Need To Protect Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Are Statutes Authorizing Televised Testimony Serving Their Purpose?, Kimberley Seals Bressler
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment begins by providing a brief outline of the procedures regulating the use of televised testimony. Next, against the larger backdrop of the history of the right to confrontation, Part III addresses the treatment of televised testimony as hearsay. This section presents a recent Maryland decision as an illustration of the undesirable analogy of televised testimony to hearsay that leads to a more difficult admission standard. Part III concludes with the argument that televised testimony is the functional equivalent of in-court testimony, and thus, a hearsay analysis is inappropriate. Part IV of this Comment presents a recent Supreme Court …