Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (10)
- Mercer University School of Law (4)
- University of Michigan Law School (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- Cleveland State University (2)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (2)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Scientific evidence (10)
- Expert witnesses (7)
- Evidence (4)
- Admissibility (2)
- Antitrust law (2)
-
- Discovery (2)
- Economics (2)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (2)
- Psychology (2)
- 167 N. E. 156 (1)
- Accomplices (1)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Anecdote (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Bad faith requirement (1)
- Bail (1)
- Bribery (1)
- Carmichael (1)
- Co-conspirator (1)
- Computer data as evidence (1)
- Conclusive presumption (1)
- Confession (1)
- Confidentiality (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
- Costs (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Criminal defendants (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Dauber (1)
- Publication
-
- Washington and Lee Law Review (10)
- Mercer Law Review (4)
- Washington Law Review (3)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
-
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- Oklahoma Law Review (2)
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (2)
- Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law (1)
- Kentucky Law Journal (1)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (1)
- Touro Law Review (1)
- University of Miami Law Review (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1)
Articles 31 - 35 of 35
Full-Text Articles in Law
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.
Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
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 …