Summer 2005TABLE OF CONTENTS
Please click on the article or column name to view the full text.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Summer 2005 Volume 20, Number 2
Crawford Symposium: Introduction
By Margaret Paris
Professor Margaret Paris, of the University of Oregon School of Law, gives a brief overview of why Crawford is still creating a buzz a full year after the decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. She also highlights each of the featured articles in this introduction to Criminal Justice magazine's annual symposium issue.
Crawford: A Look Backward, A Look Forward
By Laird Kirkpatrick
An evidence expert, Professor Kirkpatrick, of the University of Oregon School of Law, lays the foundation for a discussion of the Crawford decision with a review of the legal history of the right to confrontation and why earlier decisions, such as Roberts, failed to completely settle the question of when hearsay evidence is constitutionally acceptable. He then dissects Crawford for what guidance it offers-and fails to offer-in the admission of hearsay in trials.
"Testimonial" and the Formalistic Definition - The Case for an "Accusatorial" Fix
By Robert P. Mosteller
Professor Mosteller, of Duke Law School, argues that the term "testimonial" has little basis in history and is a poor reflection of what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended in the Confrontation Clause. He suggests that an "accusatorial" concept is more easily applied to the real-world cases seen in today's courtrooms.
Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Trustworthiness Exceptions After Crawford
By Myrna Raeder
Professor Raeder, of Southwestern University Law School, examines the fallout of Crawford as it relates to legislation that allowed prosecutors to proceed with trials even when the victim/witness was unwilling (in cases of many domestic violence trials) or unable because of age (as in child abuses cases) to testify. She discusses how the prosecutor's most potent evidence in such cases-excited utterances, statements to police, and 911 calls-might fare under the new High Court dictum.
Crawford Suprises: Mostly Unpleasant
By Richard D. Friedman
As one of the architects of the case favoring the Crawford decision, Professor Friedman, of the University of Michigan School of Law, writes that he was not surprised by efforts of prosecutors to limit the impact of Crawford, but he is disappointed that so many judges have chosen to "go along."
What Remains of Reliability: Hearsay and Freestanding Due Process After Crawford v. Washington
By Andrew E. Taslitz
Professor Taslitz, of Howard University Law School, explores the High Court's vision of reliability under the Confrontation Clause. He then demonstrates the historical basis that prosecutors might use to argue that the Crawford rule exhausts the Confrontation Clause requirements. Finally, he outlines the defense argument that due process might exclude unreliable hearsay no matter if the witness is or is not available.
Chair’s Report to Members
The Work of the Section: Year in Review
Prosecution Nearly Shut Out in Third Quarter
Other Act Evidence: The Importance of Context
Criminal Justice Matters
Getting to Know You: A Client's Right to Lawyer Disclosure
Why Should Prosecutors "Seek Justice"?
Getting Out Early: BOP Drug Program
Crawford in Juvenile Court
Chicago Annual Meeting; New Section Director Selected
Howard University Wins 2005 Trial Competition