Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (70)
- Constitutional Law (51)
- Criminal Law (30)
- Courts (24)
- Supreme Court of the United States (23)
-
- Litigation (20)
- Civil Procedure (15)
- Judges (10)
- State and Local Government Law (10)
- Juvenile Law (9)
- Legal History (8)
- Legal Profession (7)
- Law and Society (5)
- Common Law (4)
- Legal Education (4)
- Science and Technology Law (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Insurance Law (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (3)
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (3)
- Business Organizations Law (2)
- Civil Law (2)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- International Law (2)
- Internet Law (2)
- Law and Economics (2)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (59)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (16)
- University of Kentucky (9)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (9)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (8)
-
- University of Baltimore Law (8)
- University of Miami Law School (8)
- Cornell University Law School (7)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (6)
- University of Colorado Law School (6)
- Seattle University School of Law (5)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (5)
- Campbell University School of Law (4)
- Cleveland State University (4)
- Fordham Law School (4)
- New York Law School (4)
- Pepperdine University (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- University of Montana (4)
- University of Richmond (4)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (4)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (4)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (3)
- The University of Akron (3)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (2)
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (30)
- Michigan Law Review (19)
- Touro Law Review (15)
- Cardozo Law Review (8)
- University of Miami Law Review (8)
-
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (7)
- Faculty Publications (7)
- Indiana Law Journal (7)
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (6)
- Publications (6)
- Kentucky Law Journal (5)
- Seattle University Law Review (5)
- Campbell Law Review (4)
- Cleveland State Law Review (4)
- Faculty Articles (4)
- Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings (4)
- Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (4)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (4)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (4)
- Akron Law Review (3)
- Articles & Chapters (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- Washington Law Review (3)
- Fordham Law Review (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Maryland Law Review (2)
- Other Publications (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 223
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …
Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller
Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
The rule against hearsay covers a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but does not cover a statement offered for another purpose. Meanwhile, the Best Evidence Rule states that a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph must produce the original or account for its nonproduction. Does this mean that the Rule is inapplicable when a party seeks to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in a writing, recording or photograph? Most courts have answered this question in the affirmative. This essay argues these courts are wrong.
Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman
Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the Wigmore treatise was the dominant force in organizing, setting out, and explaining the American law of evidence. Since then, the first two of those roles have been taken over in large part by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules). And the third has been performed most notably by the Weinstein treatise. Judge Jack Weinstein was present at the creation of the Rules and before. Though he first made his name in Civil Procedure, while still a young man he joined two of the stalwarts of evidence law, Edmund Morgan and …
The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin
Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra
Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra
Fordham Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin
The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
On April 4, 2014, the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Evidence convened the Symposium on the Challenges of Electronic Evidence. The purpose of the symposium was "to consider the intersection of the evidence rules and emerging technologies" and explore what rule changes, if any, might be warranted in light of sweeping changes in the way people communicate.1 As an unapologetic advocate for changes to the hearsay rules, I thought it a happy coincidence that the symposium coincided with Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner's call for sweeping hearsay reform. In a 2013 article, eHearsay, I proposed a hearsay exception …
Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin
Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Conflicting Confrontation Clause Concerns: The Admissibility Of Hospital Records Versus A Defendant's Right To Confrontation, Susan Barlow
Conflicting Confrontation Clause Concerns: The Admissibility Of Hospital Records Versus A Defendant's Right To Confrontation, Susan Barlow
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Time Has Come For A Restatement Of Child Sex Abuse, Marci A. Hamilton
The Time Has Come For A Restatement Of Child Sex Abuse, Marci A. Hamilton
Articles
No abstract provided.
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I …
Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein
Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In the U.S. American trial system proof mainly consists of live witnesses presented in open court under oath before the judge, jury, and parties, subject to perjury laws. Cross-examination of the witnesses in that setting is the principal (though not the only) form of testing their reliability. It is for these reasons that we have a rule against hearsay (second-hand reporting in court of what someone has said outside of court).
"Santa Baby, Just Slip A Sable Under The Tree For Me:" Or At Least A Catchall Exception To The Hearsay Rule?, Cynthia Ford
"Santa Baby, Just Slip A Sable Under The Tree For Me:" Or At Least A Catchall Exception To The Hearsay Rule?, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article examines Montana's two rule-based "catchall" or "residual" hearsay exceptions, and a statutory exception that applies only to child declarants in criminal cases.
"As I Lay Dying:" A Halloween Meditation On The Use Of Dying Declarations In Montana, Cynthia Ford
"As I Lay Dying:" A Halloween Meditation On The Use Of Dying Declarations In Montana, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article discusses the Montana hearsay exception for "dying declarations."
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …
People V. Rojas: The Expanding Concept Of Unavailability, Brian Wade Uhl
People V. Rojas: The Expanding Concept Of Unavailability, Brian Wade Uhl
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Two Notes On Evidence: Privileges And Hearsay, J. W. Deese
Two Notes On Evidence: Privileges And Hearsay, J. W. Deese
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
In-Court Identifications Not Hearsay, Are Admissible, Cynthia Ford
In-Court Identifications Not Hearsay, Are Admissible, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article examines M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) and begins by looking at Montana case law before the rule was adopted and after it was adopted. The article follows with a look at the plethora of federal cases interpreting 801(d)(1)(C). The article points out that although Montana's version of 801(d)(1)(C) mirrors the same rule in the F.R.E, it doesn't seem that the Montana rule is used very often in reported cases. The author concludes that the rule is a good tool to escape from a hearsay objection and thereby avoid a protracted excursion into the numerous hearsay exceptions. Further, the rule applies in …
Prior Statements In Montana: Part I, Cynthia Ford
Prior Statements In Montana: Part I, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article is part one of a two-part series on prior statements in Montana. In part one, the article explores Montana's approach to prior inconsistent statements under M.R.E. 801. The article states that prior inconsistent statements are clearly admissible in Montana state court trials. Once a witness has testified on the stand, anything else said on the same subject, anywhere, any time, to anyone, which outright contradicts trial testimony, or serves to fill a memory lapse on the stand, is admissible -- not just for impeachment, but also to prove the fact earlier asserted.
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Silencing The Victims In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: The Confrontation Clause And Children's Hearsay Statements Before And After Michigan V. Bryant, Deborah Paruch
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Flow Chart For Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause 'Crawford Through Bernadyn' (April 18, 2012). University Of Baltimore School Of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, Lynn Mclain
All Faculty Scholarship
A series of flowcharts outline the nuances of hearsay law and the Confrontation Clause.
Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham
Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Taking Confrontation Seriously Does Crawford Mean That Confessions Must Be Crossexamined, Mark A. Summers
Taking Confrontation Seriously Does Crawford Mean That Confessions Must Be Crossexamined, Mark A. Summers
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman
Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
One of the central protections of our system of criminal justice is the right of the accused in all criminal prosecutions "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It provides assurance that prosecution witnesses will give their testimony in the way demanded for centuries by Anglo-American courts-in the presence of the accused, subject to cross-examination- rather than in any other way. Witnesses may not, for example, testify by speaking privately to governmental agents in a police station or in their living rooms. Since shortly after it was adopted, however, the confrontation right became obscured by the ascendance of a …
Facebook, Twitter, And The Uncertain Future Of Present Sense Impressions, Jeffrey Bellin
Facebook, Twitter, And The Uncertain Future Of Present Sense Impressions, Jeffrey Bellin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The intricate legal framework governing the admission of out-of-court statements in American trials is premised on increasingly outdated communi- cation norms. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the hearsay exception for "present sense impressions." Changing communication practices typified by interactions on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter herald the arrival of a previously uncontemplated-and uniquely unreliable-breed of present sense impressions. This Article contends that the indiscriminate admission of these electronic present sense impressions (e-PSIs) is both normatively undesirable and inconsistent with the traditional rationale for the present sense impression exception. It proposes a reform to the exception that …
Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman
Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington radically transformed the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Before Crawford, a prosecutor could introduce against an accused evidence of a hearsay statement, even one made in contemplation that it would be used in prosecution, so long as the statement fit within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception or the court otherwise determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable to warrant admissibility. Crawford recognized that the Clause is a procedural guarantee, governing the manner in which prosecution witnesses give their testimony. Therefore, a prosecutor may not introduce a statement that is testimonial …
Garner V. State: Maryland’S Implied Retreat From Implied Assertions, Lindsey N. Lanzendorfer
Garner V. State: Maryland’S Implied Retreat From Implied Assertions, Lindsey N. Lanzendorfer
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.