Law Commons^™

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

The Attorney As Advocate And Witness: Does The Prohibition Of An Attorney Acting As Advocate And Witness At A Judicial Trial Also Apply In Administrative Adjudications, Arnold Rochvarg

All Faculty Scholarship

In every state, the professional rules of conduct contain a prohibition on an attorney acting as both an advocate for their client and a witness in the same trial. The "lawyer as witness" rule has, however, been inconsistently applied in administrative adjudications. This article analyzes the split of authority in the use of this rule and proposes a solution as how the issue should be resolved.

Ample support for applying the lawyer as witness rule to administrative adjudications may be found in administrative decisions, judicial opinions and state bar association ethics committee opinions. There is, however, conflicting authority that rejects …

The Lessons Of People V. Moscat: Confronting Judicial Bias In Domestic Violence Cases Interpreting Crawford V. Washington, David Jaros

All Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington was a groundbreaking decision that radically redefined the scope of the Confrontation Clause. Nowhere has the impact of Crawford and the debate over its meaning been stronger than in the context of domestic violence prosecutions. The particular circumstances that surround domestic violence cases 911 calls that record cries for help and accusations, excited utterances made to responding police officers, and the persistent reluctance of complaining witnesses to cooperate with prosecutors -- combine to make the introduction of "out-of-comment statements" a critical component of many domestic violence prosecutions. Because domestic violence cases are subject to a unique set …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.

The Demonization Of Jonathan Pollard, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the case of Jonathan Pollard, and the issues surrounding his conviction of spying for Israel while acting as a U.S. naval intelligence analyst. Cited are the writer's view of the inequities of his conviction, and possible political motivations for his sentence.

Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses how attorneys can argue against having government and public reports admitted into evidence at trial that would be damaging to their client. When this paper was done, such reports were admitted via Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). The authors argue that it is possible to challenge admission of factual findings in public reports despite various court decisions which make this difficult.