Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose Or Destroy Evidence With Apparent Exculpatory, Elizabeth A. Bawden
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow - Three Common Mistakes Courts Make When Police Lose Or Destroy Evidence With Apparent Exculpatory, Elizabeth A. Bawden
Cleveland State Law Review
Part I of this Article examines the first question, what does it mean for evidence to have "apparent exculpatory value?" Part II of this Article answers the second question, when does Youngblood's bad faith requirement apply in failure to preserve evidence cases? Part III then seeks to determine the substance of Youngblood's bad faith requirement and identify the best approach to defining it. Ultimately, this Article argues that there are three common mistakes that courts make when applying Trombetta and Youngblood.
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …