Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Story Of Brady V. Maryland: From Adversarial Gamesmanship Toward The Search For Innocence?, Stephanos Bibas
The Story Of Brady V. Maryland: From Adversarial Gamesmanship Toward The Search For Innocence?, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
This book chapter, forthcoming in Criminal Procedure Stories (Carol Steiker ed. forthcoming 2005), explains the story behind Brady v. Maryland and its broader significance in the field of criminal procedure. Brady is unusual among the great landmark criminal procedure decisions of the Warren Court. Brady requires prosecutors to give criminal defendants evidence that tends to negate their guilt or reduce their punishment. In other words, Brady mandates limited discovery instead of trial by ambush. Brady's test turns not on whether the prosecutor misled a jury or acted in good faith, but on whether the evidence is favorable and material to …
Conflicting Stories And Reasonable Doubt: Variations On W. (D.)'S Theme, Steve Coughlan
Conflicting Stories And Reasonable Doubt: Variations On W. (D.)'S Theme, Steve Coughlan
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Whether the guilt of an accused has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is always a difficult issue, particularly so when the accused has testified. There is little difficulty when an accused's exculpatory testimony is accepted by the trial judge, since that of course leads unambiguously to an acquittal. More complex is the situation where a trial judge does not simply accept the accused's version of events — that is, most of the time. In those circumstances, trial judge must embark down the twisty road of deciding whether disbelieved testimony can nonetheless result in an acquittal, or alternatively whether an …
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion reinterpreted the Confrontation Clause to exclude otherwise reliable testimonial hearsay unless the defendant has been able to cross-examine it. In Blakely v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion required that juries, not judges, find beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that trigger sentences above ordinary sentencing-guidelines ranges. Crawford and Blakely are prime case studies in the strengths, weaknesses, and influence of originalism and formalism in criminal procedure. Crawford succeeded because it cleared away muddled case law, laid a strong foundation in the historical record, and erected a simple, solid, workable rule. …