Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …
Gradually Exploded: Confrontation Vs. The Former Testimony Rule., Tim Donaldson
Gradually Exploded: Confrontation Vs. The Former Testimony Rule., Tim Donaldson
St. Mary's Law Journal
Observing live court testimony allows a jury to determine witness credibility. This is called demeanor evidence. Allowing the introduction of transcripts of prior testimony by a witness offends a defendant's right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Loss of demeanor evidence can heighten sensitivity surrounding the constitutional demands of unavailability and an opportunity for cross-examination. But the loss of this evidence is discounted when dealing with the admissibility of prior testimony as long as a defendant was formerly afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Demeanor evidence, however, is still treated as a non-essential component of …
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman
Publications
This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.
Current Decision, Right To Inspect Memoranda Used To Revive Recollection, Howard Klemme
Current Decision, Right To Inspect Memoranda Used To Revive Recollection, Howard Klemme
Publications
No abstract provided.
Eliminating The Battle Of Experts In Criminal Insanity Cases, Henry Weihofen
Eliminating The Battle Of Experts In Criminal Insanity Cases, Henry Weihofen
Michigan Law Review
It is the purpose of this article to discuss certain procedural devices which have been adopted in some jurisdictions, designed to eliminate the ''battle of experts" which still disgraces criminal procedure in most of our states, and to replace it with a more impartial, more scientific, type of investigation.
Witnesses-Prior Conviction Of Crime To Impeach-Circumstances Of Sentencing Not Admissible, J. D. Mcleod S.Ed.
Witnesses-Prior Conviction Of Crime To Impeach-Circumstances Of Sentencing Not Admissible, J. D. Mcleod S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
ln an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in 1945, at which time he was a prisoner of the State of Virginia, plaintiff testified in his own behalf at the jury trial. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had been convicted of assault in 1943, that sentence had been suspended on condition that he enter the service, and that he had been sentenced to jail when he failed to enter the service. In his argument, defendant's attorney declared that the action had its inception in 1943, and emphasized that plaintiff had failed to enter the service when the sentence …