Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Sixth Amendment (3)
- Testimony (3)
- Admissibility (2)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
-
- Police (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- 18 USC 7 (1)
- Accuser-obligation approach (1)
- Adjudicative facts (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Bias (1)
- Capital Jury Project (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation analysis (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Crimes against humanity (1)
- Crimes against the state (1)
- Criminal justice system (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Decisionmaking (1)
- Domestic violence (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Experiments (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Capital Jury And Empathy: The Problem Of Worthy And Unworthy Victims, Scott E. Sundby
The Capital Jury And Empathy: The Problem Of Worthy And Unworthy Victims, Scott E. Sundby
Articles
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule (Law And Truth - The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium On Law And Public Policy - 2002), Yale Kamisar
Articles
think Dean Pye's advice about casebook writing was sound,6 and what he had to say also applies to discussions and debates about such issues as the search and seizure exclusionary rule. We cannot (at least we should not) begin with Mapp v. Ohio. We need a prelude.
The Evolution Of The United Nations Position On Terrorism: From Exempting National Liberation Movements To Criminalizing Terrorism Wherever And By Whomever Committed, Malvina Halberstam
The Evolution Of The United Nations Position On Terrorism: From Exempting National Liberation Movements To Criminalizing Terrorism Wherever And By Whomever Committed, Malvina Halberstam
Articles
No abstract provided.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.
One such …
Politicizing The Crime Against Humanity: The French Example, Vivian Grosswald Curran
Politicizing The Crime Against Humanity: The French Example, Vivian Grosswald Curran
Articles
The advantages of world adherence to universally acceptable standards of law and fundamental rights seemed apparent after the Second World War, as they had after the First. Their appeal seems ever greater and their advocates ever more persuasive today. The history of law provides evidence that caution may be in order, however, and that the human propensity to ignore what transpires under the surface of law threatens to dull and silence the ongoing self-examination and self-criticism required in perpetuity by the law if it is to be correlated with justice.
This Essay presents one side, the dark side, of the …
Retrying Race, Anthony V. Alfieri
An Accuser-Obligation Approach To The Confrontation Clause, Sherman J. Clark
An Accuser-Obligation Approach To The Confrontation Clause, Sherman J. Clark
Articles
This Essay argues that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment ought to be re-understood as primarily an accuser's obligation rather than primarily as a defendant's right. We demand that those who would perform this potentially dangerous, morally weighty, and symbolically loaded act-the act of accusation-be willing to do so face to face. We impose this requirement not only because out-of-court accusations are unreliable, though they may often be, but also in response to a deep, if inchoate, feeling that it is somehow beneath us inconsistent with our sense of who we want to be as a community-to allow witnesses …
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford V. Washington, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
On June 9, by granting certiorari in Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410, the Supreme Court signaled its intention to enter once again into the realm of the Confrontation Clause, in which it has found itself deeply perplexed. This time there was a difference, however, because the grant indicated that the Court might be willing to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Crawford, like Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), presents a classic case of what might be called station-house testimony. Michael Crawford was accused of stabbing another man. His wife, Sylvia, was …
Weighing Poison Fruit, Yale Kamisar
Weighing Poison Fruit, Yale Kamisar
Articles
In the simplest cases involving the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, the items the defense is trying to suppress, such as drugs found during the search of a suspect's pocket, are direct, or primary, in their relationship to the police action. Thus, if the police have acted unlawfully, the evidence must be excluded from trial.
Many times, however, evidence is derivative, or secondary, in character. For example, an illegal search may turn up a key to an airport locker where the proceeds of a bank robbery are being kept. Or a coerced confession may reveal the place where a suspect …
How Much Do We Really Know About Race And Juries? A Review Of Social Science Theory And Research, Samuel R. Sommers, Phoebe C. Ellsworth
How Much Do We Really Know About Race And Juries? A Review Of Social Science Theory And Research, Samuel R. Sommers, Phoebe C. Ellsworth
Articles
The past decade has witnessed numerous high-profile criminal trials in which controversial verdicts have been attributed to racethe race of the defendant, the racial composition of a jury, an attorney "playing the race card," and so on. A predominantly Black jury's acquittal of O.J. Simpson and White jurors' leniency in the police brutality cases of Rodney King and Amadou Diallo not only sparked public debate, but also led to rioting and violence. In the wake of trials such as these, many have questioned the viability of the American jury system.' More specific questions regarding the influence of race on jury …
Sometimes What Everybody Thinks They Know Is True, Richard D. Friedman, Roger C. Park
Sometimes What Everybody Thinks They Know Is True, Richard D. Friedman, Roger C. Park
Articles
This essay responds to D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002), who question the value of motive evidence in murder cases. They argue that the evidence that a husband had extramartial affairs, that he heavily insured his wife's life, or that he battered his wife is ordinarily of infinitesimal probative value. We disagree. To be sure, it would be foolish to predict solely on the basis of such evidence that a husband will murder his wife. However, when this kind of evidence is cobmined with other evidence in a realistic murder case, the evidence can be quite probative. We analyze …
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation As A Hot Topic: The Virtues Of Going Back To Square One, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have been working so obsessively on the accused's right to confront the witnesses against him 1 that I am gratified that the organizers of this conference have designated confrontation as one of the "hot topics" of Evidence law. I am not so egotistical as to think that my work has made confrontation into a hot topic; I am just glad to know that I am working where a good deal of action is, and that other scholars recognize that confrontation is an important area in which dramatic changes may be occurring.