Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Balancing test (1)
- Computer generated simulation (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
-
- Criminal investigation (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- False testimony (1)
- Hearsay Exception (1)
- Hearsay rule exceptions (1)
- Jury (1)
- Nonhearsay (1)
- Perjury (1)
- Police misconduct litigation (1)
- Probative value (1)
- Proof (1)
- Relevance (1)
- Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Testimonial Hearsay (1)
- Trial evidence (1)
- Unintended Assertions (1)
- Videotape evidence (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Wanting The Truth: Comparing Prosecutions Of Investigative And Institutional Deception, Lisa Kern Griffin
Wanting The Truth: Comparing Prosecutions Of Investigative And Institutional Deception, Lisa Kern Griffin
Faculty Scholarship
Defensive dishonesty in criminal investigations has increasingly been prosecuted without standards for identifying harmful deception or other meaningful checks on prosecutorial discretion. Although they are often grouped together statistically and evaluated as comparable crimes, there is a clear distinction between investigative lies and in-court perjury. The differences between the offenses—including the standards for prosecution, the perceived victim, and the purposes of bringing charges—suggest reasons to reconsider the current approach to investigative lies such as false statements. More truth is produced, and arguably more cooperation results, when the government focuses on the quality of the information flow. The structural protections in …
Analysis Of Videotape Evidence In Police Misconduct Cases, Martin A. Schwartz, Jessica Silbey, Jack Ryan, Gail Donoghue
Analysis Of Videotape Evidence In Police Misconduct Cases, Martin A. Schwartz, Jessica Silbey, Jack Ryan, Gail Donoghue
Faculty Scholarship
Many evidentiary issues arise with respect to the admission of videotape evidence and computer generated simulations at trial, and the authors of this Article address these issues as they arise in police misconduct cases. Professor Schwartz provides insight into and analysis of the evidentiary principles that govern the use of video and computer simulation evidence at trial in cases where police misconduct is at issue. His discussion first addresses the issues that concern the admissibility of videotape evidence, then discusses the role of a videotape on summary judgment, and lastly, analyzes evidentiary issues with respect to computer generated simulations.