Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

This article examines the most significant cases from the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia over the past year. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes to the law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 Session in the field of criminal law and procedure.

Post-Crawford: Time To Liberalize The Substantive Admissibility Of A Testifying Witness's Prior Consistent Statements, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States has read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to prevent the prosecution's offering a child abuse victim's prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. As a result of that decision, the statements will also be inadmissible even for the limited purpose of helping to evaluate the credibility of a child, if there is a serious risk that the out-of-court statements would be used on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Moreover, after the Court's March 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, which redesigned the landscape of Confrontation Clause analysis, other …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

True Lies: The Constitutional And Evidentiary Bases For Admitting Prior False Accusation Evidence In Sexual Assault Prosecutions, Jules Epstein

ExpressO

The admission of false accusation evidence in sexual assault prosecutions has been ruled on inconsistently by courts nationally. This article identifies the constitutional bases for admitting false accusation evidence as both impeachment and substantive (non-character) proof, and re-focuses Confrontation Clause analysis post-Crawford on the scope of the cross-examination right; offers a definition for what constitutes a false accusation and the level of proof requisite to its admission; and addresses social and policy concerns attendant to its presentation.

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 …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Securing A Journalist's Testimonial Privilege In The International Criminal Court, Anastasia Heeger

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article argues that given the unique and significant contribution of journalists to uncovering and documenting war crimes, the ICC should amend its evidentiary rules to recognize a qualified journalist's privilege. In doing so, the ICC should clearly identify who may benefit from such a privilege, clarify a procedure for balancing the need of reportorial testimony against prosecution and defense interests, and, lastly provide for mandatory consultations between the court and affected news organizations or journalists before allowing the issuance of a subpoena. Such clarity will benefit not only journalists working in war zones and the ICC, but will provide …

A Blow To Domestic Violence Victims: Applying The "Testimonial Statements" Test In Crawford V. Washington, Melissa Moody

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Deviance, Due Process, And The False Promise Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 (concerning rape and child abuse, respectively) allow jurors to use the accused's prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Courts have rejected due process challenges to the new rules, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 serves as a check on any fairness concerns. However, courts' application of Rule 403 in cases involving these sexual propensity rules is troubling. Relying on the legislative history of the new rules and announcing a presumption of admissibility, courts have forsaken the traditional operation of …

Evidence—Sixth Amendment And The Confrontation Clause—Testimonial Trumps Reliable: The United States Supreme Court Reconsiders Its Approach To The Confrontation Clause. Crawford V. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)., Kristen Sluyter

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nothing Plus Nothing Equals... Something? A Proposal For Flir Warrants On Reasonable Suspicion, Steve Coughlan, Marc Gorbet

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Over a series of decisions, the Court has been backing itself into a corner with its section 8 jurisprudence. Section 8 protects against unreasonable searches. Since the earliest ruling on the section in Hunter v. Southam} searches are prima facie unreasonable if they take place without a warrant. Thus, before conducting a search, police must have a warrant. Before getting a warrant, police must have information about the accused. Obtaining information about the accused probably involves conduct that qualifies as a search. Thus for example in K. v. Kokesch, R. v. Wiley, and R. v. Plant, perimeter searches, conducted in …

A Brave New World Of Criminal Justice: Neil Gerlach's Genetic Imaginary, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In this well written and intriguing book, Neil Gerlach asks why the criminal justice system has accepted DNA evidence in much the same way that our Anglo-Saxon predecessors accepted trial by ordeal. Why have we not instead shown the same caution we show polygraph evidence? To be sure, he does not present the issue in those terms, and might shudder at the analogy. Still, the central issue he pursues in the book is the question of how DNA evidence has managed to assume its current aura of infallibility, as evidence which is somehow uniquely objective and "true": how it has …

A Jurisprudence Of Doubt: Missouri V. Seibert, United States V. Patane, And The Supreme Court's Continued Confusion About The Constitutional Status Of Miranda, Johnathan L. Rogers

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Earl Warren's Twenty-Two Years In Law Enforcement Affected His Work As Chief Justice, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Before becoming governor of California, Earl Warren had spent his entire legal career, twenty-two years, in law enforcement. Professor Kamisar maintains that this experience significantly influenced Warren's work as a Supreme Court justice and gave him a unique perspective into police interrogation and other police practices. This article discusses some of Warren's experiences in law enforcement and searches for evidence of that experience in Warren's opinions. For example, when Warren was head of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, he and his deputies not only relied on confessions in many homicide cases but also themselves interrogated homicide suspects. The seeds …

The Criminal Defence Lawyer's Role, David Layton

Dalhousie Law Journal

Defence lawyers often fight to prevent the conviction of people who have committed serious crimes. How can this role be justified? In providing his answer the author generally accepts the traditional view of criminal lawyering according to which defence counsel "does good" by ensuring that the state does not obtain a conviction in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible and reliable evidence Ethical advocacy in the criminal context is thus heavily influenced by a conception of justice that includes not only the search for truth but also due process rights for accused persons. The author …

Duress Is Not A Justification, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

No abstract provided.

Forecasting Harm: The Law And Science Of Risk Assessment Among Prisoners, Predators, And Patients, John Monahan

ExpressO

Scientifically valid instruments are being used for the first time to assess an individual’s risk of violence in criminal sentencing and in the civil commitment of mental patients and sexual predators. Risk factors on these instruments pertain to what the person is (e.g., gender), what the person has (e.g., personality disorder), what the person has done (e.g., past violence), and what has been done to the person (e.g., past victimization). In this Article, I argue that in criminal law, with its emphasis on blameworthiness for actions taken, the admissibility of scientifically valid risk factors is properly constrained to those that …

“Which One Of You Did It?” Criminal Liability For “Causing Or Allowing” The Death Of A Child, Lissa Griffin

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …

Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

A Look Back On A Half-Century Of Teaching, Writing And Speaking About Criminal Law And Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I look back at my academic career, I realize that, as hard as I tried to plan things, various events often overrode my plans.

Postscript: Another Look At Patane And Seibert, The 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Some months after I finished writing an article that, inter alia, discussed the lower court opinions in Patane and Seibert (an article that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journa),1 the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in those cases.2 In Patane, a 5-4 majority held admissible a Glock pistol located as a result of a failure to comply with Miranda. In Seibert, a 5-4 majority agreed with the state court that a "second confession," one obtained after the police had deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique designed to undermine the Miranda warnings, was inadmissible. 3 In Patane, Justice …

The Trial Court's Gatekeeper Role Under Frye, Daubert, And Kumho: A Special Look At Children's Cases, John Eric Smithburn

Journal Articles

The typical requisites for receiving testimony from an expert witness are that the expert be qualified in a particular subject or area of expertise, that the expert testify in opinion form or otherwise, which will help the fact finder, and that there be a proper basis for the expert's testimony. This article examines the changing meaning in the law of evidence of the expert's subject area in cases involving children. During most of the last century, where the expert witness proposed to testify concerning a new or novel scientific system, process or technique, the court applied the rule of Frye …

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Misuse Of Scientific Evidence By Prosecutors, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The prosecutor's misuse of scientific evidence to charge and convict has not been sufficiently examined. Courts and commentators critiquing abuses of scientific evidence in criminal cases rarely focus on the prosecutor's role in the process. Issues typically discussed are the questionable nature of the evidence, the controversial manner in which the evidence was acquired and tested, whether the expert arrived at her conclusions in a scientifically reliable manner, and whether the expert's courtroom testimony was false or misleading. The prosecutor's control over and manipulation of the scientific evidence to shape the fact-finder's evaluation of the facts and to persuade the …

Wrongful Convictions And The Accuracy Of The Criminal Justice System, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Virtual Cross-Examination: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

Trial lawyers and judges are quite accustomed to courtroom battles over the admissibility of hearsay. But relatively few have much experience at challenging the credibility of hearsay. Once hearsay is admitted in evidence, even the ablest advocates typically proceed as if the hearsay battle were over, at least until the appeal. Few lawyers take advantage of the opportunities available to impeach the hearsay declarant. Consider the perspective of one experienced trial judge: I sometimes wonder at what seems to me the passing up of golden opportunities by the able advocate. Foremost among these lost opportunities is the virtual total neglect …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Link: The Jury And The Origins Of The Confrontation Right And The Hearsay Rule, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

The rule against hearsay has long been one of the most distinctive elements of the common law of evidence, and indeed— except for recent changes on the civil side in many jurisdictions— of the common law system of trial. Observers have long believed that the rule, like most of the other exclusionary rules of the common law of evidence, is "the child of the jury system". Though Edmund Morgan argued vigorously to the contrary, the received understanding is that the jury's inability to account satisfactorily for the defects of hearsay explains the rule. A famous, and perhaps seminal, expression of …

The Writings Of John Barker Waite And Thomas Davies On The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

After browsing through many volumes of the Michigan Law Review, searching for the article I would discuss on the occasion of the law review's 100th anniversary, I wound up with two "finalists": a 1955 article by Professor John Barker Waite on the law of arrest search and seizure (on further reflection, four Michigan Law Review commentaries on the general subject written by Waite between 1933 and 1955)' and a monumental 200-page article (surely one of the longest articles ever to appear in the Michigan Law Review) by Thomas Davies on the "original Fourth Amendment. 2