Evidence Commons^™

Confrontation And The Definition Of Chutzpa, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

You may know the standard illustration of chutzpa - the man who kills both his parents and then begs the sentencing court to have mercy on an orphan. In this article, I discuss a case of chutzpa that is nearly as outlandish - the criminal defendant who, having rendered his victim unavailable to testify, contends that evidence of the victim's statement should not be admitted against him because to do so would violate his right to confront her. I contend that in a case like this the defendant should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right. On the same …

Rule 801(D)(1): Prior Statement By Witness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

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 …

Incoming Drug Calls And Performative Words: They're Not Just Talking About It, Baron Parke!, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

Hearsay, The New York And Federal Rules Of Evidence: What's The Difference?, Richard T. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation And Hearsay: New Wine In An Old Bottle, The Honorable Anthony M. Brannon

Campbell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Rules On Statements Against Interest, Michael M. Martin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admitting Confessions Of Codefendants: Has Lee V. Illinois Created An Additional Hearsay Exception?, Christine Noworyta

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Meaning Of "Bad Faith" Under The Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule, Peter F. Valori

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inadequate Interpreting Services In Courts And The Rules Of Admissibility Of Testimony On Extrajudicial Interpretations, Beth G. Lindie

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Salerno: An Examination Of Rule 804(B)(1), Judith M. Mercier

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Response To The “Probative Value” Theory Of Hearsay Suggested By Hearsay From A Layperson, Eleanor Swift

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hearsay From A Layperson, David A. Schum

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Infinite Strands, Infinitesimally Thin: Storytelling, Bayesianism, Hearsay And Other Evidence, Richard D. Friedman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Experts As Hearsay Conduits: Confrontation Abuses In Opinion Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The dispute over whether litigants may use experts to run unexamined hearsay into the trial record is a microcosm of a larger debate. The larger question is whether judicial review of expert testimony should be passive, or whether the expert witness process should be marked by active judicial policing. Does the plethora of expert opinions presently being offered in modern trials merit special scrutiny by the courts?

Some scholars urge that courts must accommodate experts. Proponents of this view favor few challenges to the unrestricted rendition of opinions by an expert, whether the expert is real or self-proclaimed. Under this …

Constitutional Admissibility Of Hearsay Under The Confrontation Clause: Reliability Requirement For Hearsay Admitted Under A Non-"Firmly Rooted" Exception - Idaho V. Wright, A. Perry Wadsworth Jr.

Campbell Law Review

This note discusses the facts of Idaho v. Wright, examines the history of the admissibility of hearsay under the Confrontation Clause, and analyzes the Wright decision. This note concludes that by excluding the use of corroborative evidence in determining the trustworthiness of non-firmly rooted hearsay, the Court enhances Confrontation Clause protection for criminal defendants, but perhaps at the expense of some crime victims, such as sexually abused children.

Understanding Responses To Hearsay: An Extension Of The Comparative Analysis, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Damaska's presentation at the Hearsay Reform Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1992.

Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

The enterprise of this article is the theoretical construction of an optimal solution to the hearsay conundrum. Its first task is the elucidation of the premises upon which a rational hearsay rule can be built. Thus, the article starts by exploring the relationship between hearsay doctrine and the foundation of all rational truth-seeking enterprises, inductive logic. The article continues with an examination of the relationship between hearsay evidence and trial dynamics, for a workable rule must take into account the actual functioning of our adversary system.'" This two-pronged analysis leads to the proposal of a "best evidence hearsay rule."

Infinite Strands, Infinitesimally Thin: Storytelling, Bayesianism, Hearsay And Other Evidence, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

David Schum has long been one of our keenest commentators on questions of inference and proof. He has been particularly interested in, and illuminating on, the subject of "cascaded," or multi-step, inference.' This is a subject of importance to lawyers, because most evidence at trial can be analyzed in terms of cascaded inference. Usually, the proposition that the fact finder2 might immediately infer from the evidence is not itself an element of a crime, claim, or defense. Most often, an extra inference would be required to jump from that proposition to a proposition that the law deems material. Thus, inference …

Toward A Partial Economic, Game-Theoretic Analysis Of Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Article, I offer a fundamentally different and nondoctrinaire way of approaching hearsay questions. In brief, I take the view that the resolution of a hearsay dispute, when the declarant is not on the stand, is essentially a matter of deciding who should bear the burden of producing the declarant, or more precisely, how courts should allocate that burden. Adopting a simple procedural improvement, concerning the examination of the declarant if she is produced as a witness, allows the court to allocate the burden optimally. If live testimony by the declarant would be more probative than prejudicial, then most …

Procedural Options For Resolving Hearsay Issues, Roger C. Park

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marshalling Information Prior To Litigation, Bernard Robertson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Improving The Procedure For Resolving Hearsay Issues, Richard D. Friedman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Idaho V. Wright: The Defenestration Of Corroborating Evidence, John Clairborne Koski

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Successful Shadowboxing: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay Declarants, The Honorable Anthony M. Brannon

Campbell Law Review

Using the nine modes of impeachment recognized by the common law, I will examine some of the possibilities for impeaching hearsay declarants. As I explore each mode, I will discuss whether extrinsic, as well as intrinsic, evidence may be used to impeach the hearsay evidence.