Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (200)
- Seattle University School of Law (197)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (103)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (53)
- UIC School of Law (41)
-
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (41)
- Cornell University Law School (31)
- University of Richmond (30)
- Pepperdine University (29)
- University of Maine School of Law (27)
- Roger Williams University (25)
- University of Colorado Law School (25)
- Brooklyn Law School (23)
- West Virginia University (23)
- William & Mary Law School (22)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (21)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (19)
- BLR (18)
- Duke Law (18)
- University of Kentucky (16)
- Georgia State University College of Law (15)
- Georgetown University Law Center (14)
- University of Washington School of Law (14)
- Mercer University School of Law (13)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (13)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (12)
- American University Washington College of Law (11)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (11)
- Southern Methodist University (11)
- University of Baltimore Law (11)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (241)
- Testimony (91)
- Admissibility (89)
- United States Supreme Court (80)
- Sixth Amendment (77)
-
- Hearsay (70)
- Witnesses (69)
- Confrontation Clause (67)
- Police (64)
- Criminal procedure (62)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (53)
- Fourth Amendment (51)
- Cross-examination (48)
- Criminal law (44)
- Crawford v. Washington (41)
- Exclusionary rule (40)
- Due process (38)
- Fifth Amendment (38)
- Constitutional Law (36)
- Criminal Procedure (36)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (33)
- Confessions (31)
- Searches (28)
- Miranda v. Arizona (26)
- Expert testimony (25)
- Reliability (25)
- Testimonial (25)
- Trials (25)
- Criminal Law (24)
- Discovery (24)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (194)
- Articles (97)
- Michigan Law Review (77)
- Faculty Scholarship (72)
- Cardozo Law Review (59)
-
- Touro Law Review (45)
- UIC Law Review (32)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (30)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (30)
- Pepperdine Law Review (29)
- Maine Law Review (27)
- Faculty Publications (26)
- University of Richmond Law Review (26)
- Publications (25)
- West Virginia Law Review (22)
- ExpressO (18)
- Kentucky Law Journal (16)
- Book Chapters (15)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (14)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (14)
- Georgia State University Law Review (14)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (14)
- Mercer Law Review (13)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (13)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (13)
- Buffalo Law Review (12)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (12)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (11)
- Scholarly Works (10)
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (9)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 961 - 990 of 1359
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Article, Professors Ceci and Friedman analyze psychological studies on children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a significant degree. Studies confirm that interviewers commonly use suggestive interviewing techniques that exacerbate this suggestibility, creating a significant risk in some forensic contexts-notably but not exclusively those of suspected child abuse-that children will make false assertions of fact. Professors Ceci and Friedman address the implications of this difficulty for the legal system and respond to Professor Lyon's criticism of this view recently articulated in the Cornell Law Review. Using Bayesian probability theory, Professors Ceci and …
Admitting Expert Testimony On Battered Woman Syndrome In Virginia Courts: How Peeples Changed Virginia Self-Defense Law, Marybeth H. Lenkevich
Admitting Expert Testimony On Battered Woman Syndrome In Virginia Courts: How Peeples Changed Virginia Self-Defense Law, Marybeth H. Lenkevich
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Formal Legal Truth And Substantive Truth In Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence In Some Particular Cases, Robert S. Summers
Formal Legal Truth And Substantive Truth In Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence In Some Particular Cases, Robert S. Summers
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, ‘substantive’ as distinct from ‘formal legal’ truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. ‘Jury nullification’ and ‘jury equity’. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that experts and scientific evidence were causing problems then just as they are causing problems now. I do not think that Daubert, Kumho Tire, or any change in a rule of evidence will keep expert scientific testimony from being a difficult area for the legal system. Yet we must still ask: "What are the best terms on which to deal with scientific experts, and how can weimprove the system?"
The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich
The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda
Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda
Michigan Law Review
Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …
Defense Discovery In White Collar Criminal Prosecutions, Peter J. Henning
Defense Discovery In White Collar Criminal Prosecutions, Peter J. Henning
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
When To Hear The Hearsay: A Proposal For A New Rule Of Evidence Designed To Protect The Constitutional Right Of The Criminally Accused To Confront The Witnesses Against Her, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1287 (1999), Scott A. Smith
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande
Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confrontation Confronted, Richard D. Friedman, Margaret A. Berger, Steven R. Shapiro
Confrontation Confronted, Richard D. Friedman, Margaret A. Berger, Steven R. Shapiro
Articles
The following article is an edited version of the amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1998, in the case of Benjamin Lee Lilly v. Commonwealth of Virginia (No. 98-5881). "This case raises important questions about the meaning of the confrontation clause, which has been a vital ingredient of the fair trial right for hundreds of years," Professor Richard Friedman and his co-authors say. "In particular, this case presents the Court with an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between the confrontation clause and the law of hearsay." On June 10 the …
Lost Lives: Miscarriages Of Justice In Capital Cases, Samuel R. Gross
Lost Lives: Miscarriages Of Justice In Capital Cases, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
In case after case, erroneous conviction for capital murder has been proven. I contend that these are not disconnected accidents, but systematic consequences of the nature of homicice prosecution in the general and capital prosecution in particular - that in this respect, as in others, death distorts and undermines the course of the law.
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court once again has the opportunity to grapple with the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendmel).t. The basic facts of Lilly are simple, for they present the ageold problem of accomplice confessions. Three men, Gary Barker and Ben and Mark Lilly, went on a crime spree, during which one of them shot to death a young man they had robbed and kidnaped. Ben Lilly was charged with being the triggerman, and Barker testified to that effect at Ben's trial. Mark did not testify. But Mark had made a statement to the …
The Three Threats To Miranda, Yale Kamisar
The Three Threats To Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was the centerpiece of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure. Moreover, as Professor Stephen Schulhofer of the University of Chicago Law School has recently noted, a numbir of the Miranda safeguards "have now become entrenched in the interrogation procedures of many countries around the world." But Miranda is in serious trouble at home.
Confessions, Search And Seizure And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar
Confessions, Search And Seizure And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar
Articles
About the time William Rehnquist ascended to the Chief Justiceship of the United States, two events occurred that increased the likelihood that Miranda would enjoy a long life. In Moran v. Burbine,' a 6-3 majority held that a confession preceded by an otherwise valid waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights should not be excluded either (a) because the police misled an inquiring attorney when they told her they were not going to question the suspect she called about or (b) because the police failed to inform the suspect of the attorney's efforts to reach him.
Lie Detection: The Supreme Court's Polygraph Decision, Bennett L. Gershman
Lie Detection: The Supreme Court's Polygraph Decision, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In United States v. Scheffer, decided this past Term, the Supreme Court considered for the first time the admissibility of polygraph evidence. The Court held that exclusion of such evidence on behalf of a criminal defendant was supported by valid justifications and offended no constitutional right to present a defense.
The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands Of The Fourth Amendment, Nix, And Murray, And The Disagreement Among The Federal Circuits, Troy E. Golden
The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Today: The Demands Of The Fourth Amendment, Nix, And Murray, And The Disagreement Among The Federal Circuits, Troy E. Golden
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law
No abstract provided.
Mezzanatto And The Economics Of Self-Incrimination, Eric Rasmusen
Mezzanatto And The Economics Of Self-Incrimination, Eric Rasmusen
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
No Bad Men!: A Feminist Analysis Of Character Evidence In Rape Trials, Aviva A. Orenstein
No Bad Men!: A Feminist Analysis Of Character Evidence In Rape Trials, Aviva A. Orenstein
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond The Fourth Amendment: New Strategies For Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 U. Colo. L. Rev. 693 (1998), Timothy P. O'Neill
Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond The Fourth Amendment: New Strategies For Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 U. Colo. L. Rev. 693 (1998), Timothy P. O'Neill
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Lost Lives: Miscarriages Of Justice In Capital Cases, Samuel R. Gross
Lost Lives: Miscarriages Of Justice In Capital Cases, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
One of the longstanding complaints against the death penalty is that it "distort[s] the course of the criminal law."' Capital prosecutions are expensive and complicated; they draw sensational attention from the press; they are litigated-before, during, and after trial-at greater length and depth than other felonies; they generate more intense emotions, for and against; they last longer and live in memory. There is no dispute about these effects, only about their significance. To opponents of the death penalty, they range from minor to severe faults; to proponents, from tolerable costs to major virtues. ntil recently, however, the conviction of innocent …
Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.