Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, And Actual Innocence: Getting It Right, Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A. Moran, Waney Squier
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, And Actual Innocence: Getting It Right, Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A. Moran, Waney Squier
Articles
In the past decade, the existence of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) has been called into serious question by biomechanical studies, the medical and legal literature, and the media. As a result of these questions, SBS has been renamed abusive head trauma (AHT). This is, however, primarily a terminological shift: like SBS, AHT refers to the two-part hypothesis that one can reliably diagnose shaking or abuse from three internal findings (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy) and that one can identify the perpetrator based on the onset of symptoms. Over the past decade, we have learned that this hypothesis fits poorly …
The Sexual Innocence Inference Theory As A Basis For The Admissibility Of A Child Molestation Victim's Prior Sexual Conduct, Christopher B. Reid
The Sexual Innocence Inference Theory As A Basis For The Admissibility Of A Child Molestation Victim's Prior Sexual Conduct, Christopher B. Reid
Michigan Law Review
The sexual innocence inference refers to the thought process a jury follows when it hears a young child testify about sexual acts and matters that reveal an understanding of such acts beyond the capacity likely at his or her age. A jury is likely to assume that because the child is so young, he or she must be innocent of sexual matters. Shocked by the child's display on the witness stand, the jury may then infer that the child could have acquired such knowledge only if the charged offense of child molestation is true. To rebut this inference, a defendant …
Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack
Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. These claims have focused on the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Defendants have contended that the introduction of testimony from a grand jury proceeding which cannot be subjected to cross-examination fatally compromises the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lower courts are split over admitting grand jury testimony in these circumstances, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. As a result, …
Evidence - Admissibility - Extent To Which Juror's Affidavit May Be Used To Impeach Verdict, Herbert R. Brown S.Ed.
Evidence - Admissibility - Extent To Which Juror's Affidavit May Be Used To Impeach Verdict, Herbert R. Brown S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and made a motion for a new trial on the basis of a juror's affidavit which asserted that the jury had been divided eight to four in favor of life imprisonment over the death sentence, that subsequently several jurors introduced into the deliberations the fact that the defendant had been charged, in another indictment, with assault with intent to kill, that this became a part of the jury's deliberation, and that, as a result, the jury did not recommend life imprisonment and, instead, the death sentence was imposed. On appeal, held …
Criminal Procedure - Searches And Seizures - Admissibility Of Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Search And Seizure, Neil Flanagin S.Ed.
Criminal Procedure - Searches And Seizures - Admissibility Of Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Search And Seizure, Neil Flanagin S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendants were prosecuted and convicted of conspiring to engage in horserace bookmaking and related offenses. The police had secured evidence of defendants' activities by concealing a listening device in premises occupied by them and also by unauthorized and forcible searches. The trial court admitted the evidence so obtained, notwithstanding the fact that the police action in securing it was clearly in violation of both federal and state constitutions and statutes. After conviction, the trial court denied defendants' motion for a new trial. On appeal, held, reversed, three justices dissenting. Evidence obtained in violation of the defendants' constitutional rights is …