Law Commons^™

Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting The Appellate Standard Of Review For Hearsay, Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson, Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting the Appellate Standard of Review for Hearsay

Abstract:

The decision by a federal a court to exclude or admit hearsay can be crucial to the case of either party. Despite this prospective impact, the federal courts of appeal currently defer to district courts’ expertise by reviewing a district court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay for an abuse of discretion. Such deference often insulates district courts’ incorrect interpretation of the rule against hearsay and the improper application of the exclusions and exceptions to the rule from appellate reversal.

Lowering the standard of review for …

The Scarlet Letter: Why Courts’ Reliance On Recidivist Statutes During Sentence Enhancement Hearings May Create Fifth And Eighth Amendment Violations, Jesse S. Weinstein

Jesse Weinstein

No abstract provided.

Rationality, Insanity, And The Insanity Defense: Reflections On The Limits Of Reason, Theodore Y. Blumoff

Theodore Y. Blumoff

Individuals who suffer from chronic paranoid ideations live with deeply embedded conspiratorial delusions that are sometimes accompanied by unwanted visual and/or auditory stimuli, sometime neither: just psychotic delusions in which they feel as if they have lost control of their lives – and of course they have, albeit not from the performances of foreign forces. When those perceived forces persevere for even a fairly short period of time, they can dictate the performance of evil deeds that the individual ultimately feels helpless to oppose. What observations and findings from neuroscience make clear is that such individuals do not lack knowledge, …

Kaleidoscopic Chaos: Understanding The Circuit Courts’ Various Interpretations Of § 2255’S Savings Clause, Jennifer L. Case

Jennifer L. Case

More than 65 years ago, Congress enacted a short statute (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2255) to even the habeas corpus workload among the federal courts. That statute included a “Savings Clause,” which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences in a federal habeas petition when § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” for the task. Since that time—and with increasing frequency—the U.S. Courts of Appeals have developed wildly varying tests to determine when and how § 2255’s Savings Clause applies to prisoners’ attempts to bring federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In their attempts to understand the …