Law Commons^™

Benign Classification Based On Race Must Be Narrowly Tailored To Achieve A Compelling Governmental Interest., Martha J. Hess

St. Mary's Law Journal

In City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., the Supreme Court held a minority business utilization plan (Richmond Plan) was violative of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Richmond Plan required all builders awarded city construction contracts to subcontract, at minimum, 30% of the contract value to Minority Business Enterprises. A state government enacting legislation that burdens one class of persons and benefits a similarly-situated class must provide sufficient justification for its action to survive equal protection analysis. When distinction is based on race or national origin—classes considered inherently suspect—a reviewing court subjects the governmental legislation to strict scrutiny, …

Attorney As Interpreter: A Return To Babble, Bill Piatt

Faculty Articles

Attorneys should not represent their clients and simultaneously act as interpreters. The harm far outweighs the benefit when an attorney acts as an interpreter for a client in litigation. In 1970, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Negron v. New York determined that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause requires that non-English speaking defendants be informed of their right to simultaneous interpretation of proceedings at the government's expense, however the use of an interpreter is still at the trial court's discretion.

Courts will ordinarily not appoint an interpreter in the absence of a request to do so, but the failure …

Allowing A Child Abuse Victim To Testify Via One-Way Closed-Circuit Television Does Not Violate A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Right If The Trial Court Specifically Finds Such A Procedure Necessary To Protect The Child's Welfare., Lisa R. Miller

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Maryland v. Craig, the Supreme Court held allowing child abuse victims to testify via one-way closed-circuit television does not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right if the trial court finds the procedure necessary to protect the child’s welfare. Although “confront” has generally been interpreted to mean “face-to-face,” on occasion, it may yield to public policy considerations and the compelling necessities of particular cases. The original purpose of the confrontation right was to prevent the accusers in a criminal proceeding from using ex parte affidavits or depositions against a defendant, in lieu of personal testimony. The Craig …