Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (3)
- Cross-examination (2)
- Exclusions (2)
- Hearsay (2)
- Testimony (2)
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Accredited Proficiency Tested Laboratory Analysis Bureau (APTLAB) (1)
- Authentication (1)
- Bayesian probability (1)
- Children (1)
- Conditional relevance (1)
- Conduct (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- DNA Evidence (1)
- DNA profiling (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1)
- Impeachment (1)
- Incorporation (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lineups (1)
- Mapp v. Ohio (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Persuasion (1)
- Police (1)
- Probability (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman
Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …
Confrontation And The Utility Of Rules, Richard D. Friedman, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein, Roger C. Park, Margaret A. Berger, Nancy J. King, John Jackson, Eleanor Swift, Craig R. Callen, Eileen A. Scallen
Confrontation And The Utility Of Rules, Richard D. Friedman, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein, Roger C. Park, Margaret A. Berger, Nancy J. King, John Jackson, Eleanor Swift, Craig R. Callen, Eileen A. Scallen
Articles
There is a good reason why evidence scholars continue to be fascinated and perplexed, and some courts continue at least to be perplexed, by the types of evidence that tend to be lumped together misleadingly under the headings nonassertive conduct or implied assertions. Evidence of this sort highlights a paradox of the prevailing law of hearsay. I believe that this paradox cannot be resolved without fundamentally transforming the structure of that law. Thus, while I agree - within the current framework - with many of the insights so ably stated in this Symposium, I think evidence scholars must devote their …
Refining Conditional Probative Value, Richard D. Friedman
Refining Conditional Probative Value, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The subject of conditional relevance, or what I think is better called "conditional probative value," must seem hopelessly ard to many. It continues to engage the attention of evidence scholars, however, because it forms part of the conceptual underpinnings of many parts of evidentiary law. Dale'Nance, one of the most astute evidence scholars of our time, has previously written at length on the subject' and has done so now more briefly in response to an article of mine. I offer an even briefer continuation of the discussion.
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda v. Arizona.
Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein
Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein
Articles
This is not a conventional article. It is an edited version of messages sent to an Internet discussion list. The listings begin with the mention of a recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, parts of which are reproduced below. The listings soon move to broader issues concerning probability and other formal systems, their limitations, and their uses either in court or as devices for understanding legal proof.
The Honest Scientist's Guide To Dna Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
The Honest Scientist's Guide To Dna Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
The honest scientist recognizes that she herself is a test instrument, and a fallible one at that. Subjectivity inescapably enters into any human endeavor, and should not be denied. DNA testing is rife with subjective elements, no place more so than at the crucial stage of deciding whether a match exists. On the one hand, non-matching extraneous bands may sometimes be properly disregarded and patterns that do not quite meet objective matching criteria may be appropriately regarded as incriminatory matches. On the other hand, band patterns that do meet objective matching criteria may be treated as exonerative depending on how …