DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Amendment ACLU SUMMARY of the 2011 SUPREME COURT TERM * * * Major Civil Liberties Decisions Steven R. Shapiro National Legal Director ACLU Dated: June 28, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv HEALTH CARE ............................................................................................................................. 1 FIRST AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 A. Freedom of Speech .......................................................................................................... 1 B. Establishment Clause ....................................................................................................... 2 C. Free Exercise Clause ........................................................................................................ 2 FOURTH AMENDMENT.............................................................................................................. 3 FIFTH AMENDMENT .................................................................................................................. 3 A Miranda............................................................................................................................ 3 B. Double Jeopardy .............................................................................................................. 4 SIXTH AMENDMENT .................................................................................................................. 4 A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel .................................................................................... 4 B. Confrontation Clause ....................................................................................................... 5 C. Jury Trials ........................................................................................................................ 6 EIGHTH AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................... 6 ELEVENTH AMENDMENT ......................................................................................................... 6 EQUAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................................. 6 DUE PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 6 BIVENS CLAIMS ........................................................................................................................... 7 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ............................................................................................................. 7 IMMIGRATION ............................................................................................................................. 8 STATUTORY CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS...................................................................................... 9 A. Family and Medical Leave Act ........................................................................................ 9 B. Privacy Act....................................................................................................................... 9 C. Torture Victim Protection Act ......................................................................................... 9 VOTING RIGHTS ........................................................................................................................ 10 SOCIAL SECURITY ACT........................................................................................................... 10 COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................ 10 HABEAS CORPUS ...................................................................................................................... 10 FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW ...................................................................................................... 12 FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ....................................................................................... 12 PATENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ii JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................... 13 PREEMPTION ............................................................................................................................. 13 POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE ........................................................................................ 14 ARBITRATION ........................................................................................................................... 14 ATTORNEY’S FEES & COSTS.................................................................................................. 14 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 2012 WL 2368660 (June 25, 2012) ................. 2 Arizona v. U.S., 2012 WL 2368661 (June 25, 2012) ................................................................ 8, 14 Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S.Ct. 2073 (June 4, 2012) ..................................................... 6 Astrue v. Capato, 132 S.Ct. 2021 (May 21, 2012)........................................................................ 10 Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S.Ct. 2044 (May 24, 2012) ................................................................... 4 Bobby v. Dixon, 132 S.Ct. 26 (Nov. 7, 2011) ................................................................................. 3 Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S.Ct. 2 (Oct. 31, 2011) .............................................................................. 10 Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 132 S.Ct. 1327 (Mar. 20, 2012) ............................. 6, 9 Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S.Ct. 2060 (May 29, 2012) .................................................................. 11 CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S.Ct. 665 (Jan. 10, 2012) .............................................. 14 Dorsey v. U.S., 2012 WL 2344463 (June 21, 2012) ..................................................................... 12 Douglas v. Independent Living Center, 132 S.Ct. 1204 (Feb. 22, 2012) ...................................... 13 Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 2012 WL 2076340 (June 11, 2012) ............................................ 13 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 WL 2344462 (June 21, 2012) .................................... 1 Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1441 (Mar. 28, 2012) ............................... 9 Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S.Ct. 1657 (Apr. 17, 2012) .......................................................................... 8 Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (Apr. 2, 2012) .................................... 3 Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (Jan. 18, 2012) ........................................................................... 10 Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641 (Jan. 10, 2012) ....................................................................... 11 Greene v. Fisher, 132 S.Ct. 38 (Nov. 8, 2011) ............................................................................. 11 Hardy v. Cross, 132 S.Ct. 490 (Dec. 12, 2011) ........................................................................ 5, 12 Holder v. Martinez, 132 S.Ct. 2011 (May 21, 2012) ...................................................................... 8 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S.Ct. 694 (Jan. 11, 2012)............................................................................................................................. 2 Howes v. Fields, 132 S.Ct. 1181 (Feb. 21, 2012) ........................................................................... 4 Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (Dec. 12, 2011) ....................................................................... 8 Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) .................................................................. 8 Knox v. SEIU, 2012 WL 2344461 (June 21, 2012) ........................................................................ 2 Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (Mar. 21, 2012) .......................................................................... 5 Maples v. Thomas, 132 S.Ct. 912 (Jan. 18, 2012) ........................................................................ 11 Marmet Health Care Center v. Brown, 132 S.Ct. 1201 (Feb. 21, 2012) ...................................... 14 Martel v. Clair, 132 S.Ct. 1276 (Mar. 5, 2012) ............................................................................ 12 Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (Mar. 20, 2012) ....................................................................... 11 iv Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (Mar. 20, 2012) ......................................................................................................................... 13 Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235 (Feb. 22, 2012) ........................................................ 7 Miller v. Alabama, 2012 WL 2368659 (June 25, 2012) ................................................................. 6 Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, 132 S.Ct. 740 (Jan. 18, 2012) ............................................... 13 Minneci v. Pollard,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ In The Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ ROBERT A. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado ____________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ____________________ Ned R. Jaeckle Jeffrey L. Fisher COLORADO STATE PUBLIC O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP DEFENDER 2765 Sand Hill Road 1300 Broadway, Suite 300 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Denver, CO 80203 Meaghan VerGow Kendall Turner Counsel of Record O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 383-5204 kendallturner@omm.com i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, and to what extent, the Sixth and Four- teenth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover potentially exculpatory mental health records held by a private party, notwithstand- ing a state privilege law to the contrary. i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS Perez v. People, Colorado Supreme Court No. 19SC587 (Feb. 24, 2020) (available at 2020 WL 897586) (denying Perez’s petition for a writ of certio- rari) People v. Perez, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 16CA1180 (June 13, 2019) (affirming trial court judg- ment) People v. Perez, Colorado District Court No. 14CR4593 (Apr. 7, 2016) (granting motion to quash subpoena seeking mental health records) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................ i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS ....... i PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ........... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................. 1 JURISDICTION ........................................................ 1 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS .................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................ 8 A. State high courts and federal courts of appeals are openly split on the question presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment Randolph N
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1988 Restoring the Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment Randolph N. Jonakait New York Law School, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation UCLA Law Review, Vol. 35, Issue 4 (April 1988), pp. 557-622 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. ARTICLES RESTORING THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT Randolph N. Jonakait* INTRODUCTION The relationship between the sixth amendment's con- frontation clause' and out-of-court statements by absent de- clarants is a difficult one.2 Before 1980, the Supreme Court * Professor of Law and Associate Dean, New York Law School. A.B., Princeton University, 1967;J.D., University of Chicago Law School, 1970; LL.M., New York University Law School, 1971. The author wishes to thank his colleague Professor Donald Hazen Zeigler for his helpful comments. 1. The sixth amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the wit- nesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- nesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Disentangling the Sixth Amendment
    ARTICLES * DISENTANGLING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT Sanjay Chhablani** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................488 I. THE PATH TRAVELLED: A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE COURT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE......................492 II. AT A CROSSROADS: THE RECENT DISENTANGLEMENT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT .......................................................505 A. The “All Criminal Prosecutions” Predicate....................505 B. Right of Confrontation ...................................................512 III. THE ROAD AHEAD: ENTANGLEMENTS YET TO BE UNDONE.................................................................................516 A. The “All Criminal Prosecutions” Predicate....................516 B. The Right to Compulsory Process ..................................523 C. The Right to a Public Trial .............................................528 D. The Right to a Speedy Trial............................................533 E. The Right to Confrontation............................................538 F. The Right to Assistance of Counsel ................................541 CONCLUSION.................................................................................548 APPENDIX A: FEDERAL CRIMES AT THE TIME THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED...................................................549 * © 2008 Sanjay Chhablani. All rights reserved. ** Assistant Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. I owe a debt of gratitude to Akhil Amar, David Driesen, Keith Bybee, and Gregory
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Scalia for the Defense? Joanmarie Ilaria Davoli Florida Coastal School of Law
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 40 Article 7 Issue 4 Summer 2011 2011 Justice Scalia for the Defense? Joanmarie Ilaria Davoli Florida Coastal School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Davoli, Joanmarie Ilaria (2011) "Justice Scalia for the Defense?," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 40: Iss. 4, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol40/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact snolan@ubalt.edu. JUSTICE SCALIA FOR THE DEFENSE? Joanmarie Haria Davolit [T]he studies the Court cites in no way justify a constitutional imperative that prevents legislatures and juries from treating exceptional cases in an exceptional way-by determining that some murders are not just the acts of happy-go-lucky teenagers, but heinous crimes deserving of death.' In dissenting from the 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision that held that imposition of the death penalty on juvenile defendants violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justice Scalia continued to solidify his prosecution-oriented, law-and-order reputation. 2 Widely considered to be one of the most politically conservative Justices on the United States Supreme Court, many believe that his ideology results and rulings are hostile to the rights of criminal defendants. 3 Despite Scalia's reputation, the impact of his decisions often benefits criminal defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confrontation Clause and Pretrial Hearings: a Due Process Solution
    HOLST.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 8/30/2010 9:45 AM THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AND PRETRIAL HEARINGS: A DUE PROCESS SOLUTION * CHRISTINE HOLST Despite the recent crop of Supreme Court cases addressing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, many issues regard- ing the application of the Confrontation Clause remain unresolved. In this Note, the author articulates and analyzes one such lingering question: whether the Confrontation Clause applies to pretrial hear- ings, and if so, to what extent. After describing the relevant Supreme Court precedent—including the current state of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence—the author examines the various ways lower courts have interpreted and applied that precedent in determining whether the Confrontation Clause applies prior to trial. The author then arti- culates three potential approaches to applying the Confrontation Clause to pretrial hearings, yet ultimately concludes that the prefera- ble means of reconciling Supreme Court precedent with the necessity of protecting criminal defendants’ confrontation rights prior to trial is to analyze such questions under a due process—rather than a Con- frontation Clause—framework. I. INTRODUCTION “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . .”1 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is only one short phrase and yet, like so many other constitutional issues, the meaning of these few words has been the sub- ject of countless court opinions. For more than a century, the Supreme Court of the United States has struggled with the protections of the Con- frontation Clause, particularly as they relate to the rules against hearsay, developing, revising, and abandoning doctrine in a patchwork of cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cr-00188-JSR Document 208 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:20-cr-00188-JSR Document 208 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : : 20-cr-188 (JSR) -v- : : OPINION & ORDER HAMID AKHAVAN & RUBEN WEIGAND, : : Defendants. : : -----------------------------------x JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J. This case began less than one year ago, on March 9, 2020, when a grand jury returned indictments against Ruben Weigand and Hamid (“Ray”) Akhavan for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Today, the Court will empanel a jury to try the case. The intervening year has been challenging. Just two days after the indictments were returned, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic.1 Two days later, President Trump announced that “[t]o unleash the full power of the federal government, in this effort today I am officially declaring a national emergency. Two very big words.”2 Since then, the total 1 James Keaton, et al., WHO Declares Coronavirus a Pandemic, Urges Aggressive Action, Reuters (Mar. 12, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/52e12ca90c55b6e0c398d134a2cc286e. 2 The New York Times, Two Very Big Words: Trump Announces National Emergency for Coronavirus (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007032704/trump- coronavirus-live.html. 1 Case 1:20-cr-00188-JSR Document 208 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 25 number of confirmed COVID-19 cases has surpassed 113 million worldwide, and more than 2.5 million people have died.3 In the United States alone, there have been more than 28 million confirmed cases, and more than half a million people have died.4 Recognizing the importance of the defendants’ and the public’s right to a speedy trial, and despite the complexity of this case and the many difficulties generated by the pandemic, the Court has expended considerable effort to bring the case swiftly and safely to trial.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2012 Bar Examination Sample Answers
    July 2012 Bar Examination Sample Answers DISCLAIMER These are actual answers to essay questions that were written by applicants during this Bar examination. Each of these answers received a high score from the Examiner who wrote the question. The answers are provided to be helpful to applicants in preparing for a future exam, not to be used to appeal a score received on a prior exam. The answers may be printed and circulated. Question1 - Sample Answer #1 1(a) King Pin can argue that Drug Dealer's recorded statements should be excluded because they violate the Fourth Amendment (4A) rule against unreasonable search and seizure and that the statements are hearsay. Under the 4A, police must obtain a warrant before they engage in the search and seizure of a person or their effects. King Pin might argue that by recording the telephone call, the officers violated Drug Dealer's legitimate expectation of privacy in conversations on the phone. This is an expectation that Drug Dealer subjectively thought he had and one that society recognizes as reasonable. Normally, police officers must obtain a warrant to put a wire tap on a persons phone which requires that they name the suspect, that the wiretap be fore a limited time, that the warrant name the crime involved, and describe with particularity the conversations to be recorded. King Pin might also argue that if such statements are not excluded under a 4A violation, they are hearsay, which would be out-of-court statements asserted at trial to prove the truth of the matter, namely that King Pin conspired to sell cocaine, possess cocaine, and the other named crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confrontation Clause and the New "Primary Purpose Test" in Domestic Violence Cases; Davis V Washington, 126 S
    Wyoming Law Review Volume 7 Number 2 Wyoming Energy Symposium Article 9 January 2007 Constitutional Law -- The Confrontation Clause and the New "Primary Purpose Test" in Domestic Violence Cases; Davis v Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006) Monica Vozakis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr Recommended Citation Vozakis, Monica (2007) "Constitutional Law -- The Confrontation Clause and the New "Primary Purpose Test" in Domestic Violence Cases; Davis v Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006)," Wyoming Law Review: Vol. 7 : No. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr/vol7/iss2/9 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wyoming Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Vozakis: Constitutional Law -- The Confrontation Clause and the New "Prima CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-The Confrontation Clause and the New "Primary Purpose Test" in Domestic Violence Cases; Davis v.Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006). Monica Vozakis * INTRODUCTION On February 1,2001, Michelle McCottry dialed 911 and then quickly hung up.' Since hang-ups often indicate grave danger, the 911 operator immediately returned the call. 2 A hysterical and sobbing McCottry answered and told the operator, "He's here jumpin' on me again." 3 The operator ask McCottry who the attacker was, the relationship she had with the attacker, and if alcohol was involved.4 McCottry identified her attacker as Adrian Davis and told the operator he had beaten her with his fists and had just left.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, Respondent. Counsel of Record
    No. 18-5924 IN THE EVANGELISTO RAMOS, Petitioner, v. LOUISIANA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit BRIEF FOR PETITIONER Jeffrey L. Fisher G. Ben Cohen Brian H. Fletcher Counsel of Record Pamela S. Karlan Shanita Farris STANFORD LAW SCHOOL Erica Navalance SUPREME COURT THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE LITIGATION CLINIC INITIATIVE 559 Nathan Abbott Way 1024 Elysian Fields Ave. Stanford, CA 94305 New Orleans, LA 70116 (504) 529-5955 Yaira Dubin bcohen@defendla.org O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict to convict. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED........................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv BRIEF FOR PETITIONER ......................................... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 2 A. Historical background .................................... 2 B. Facts and procedural history ......................... 9 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................... 13 ARGUMENT.............................................................. 15 I. The Sixth Amendment’s Jury Trial Clause requires a unanimous jury verdict
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Criminal Jury Trials Threaten Fundamental Rights June 23, 2020 by Henry E
    Bloomberg Law INSIGHT: Virtual Criminal Jury Trials Threaten Fundamental Rights June 23, 2020 by Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., Terence M. Grugan, and Izabella Babchinetskaya During the pandemic, as virtual trials are considered, we are steps away from having defendants waive all that they are due. In the second part of a two-part series, Ballard Spahr attorneys examine the impacts of virtual trials on a defendant’s constitutional rights. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to trial by a jury of their peers. As we discussed in Part 1 of this two-part series, a jury trial allows defendants and attorneys to speak to a group of laypeople, to tell a story, appeal to emotions, and persuade through a compelling presentation of evidence. In Part 1, we discussed the practical concerns of a virtual trial, Part 2 focuses on the constitutional issues surrounding a virtual criminal jury trial. The right to counsel in a criminal case is more than just a right to a mouthpiece arguing points at a trial. The right to counsel embraces the right to communicate and work with counsel. Virtual trials will limit a lawyer’s ability to confer with the defendant before and during the trial. Before Covid-19, attorneys and their clients could communicate through phone calls and in-person meetings to go over trial strategy. But now, for defendants who are in jail, phone privileges are harder to come by, and jails may not have access to secure virtual platforms that could provide the same level of preparation as in-person meetings. Even those who are not behind bars may face the same issues if they do not have access to high-speed internet or devices with webcams.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Confrontation Clause: Is There Dissension Among the Ranks - Lilly V
    Mississippi College Law Review Volume 21 Issue 1 Vol. 21 Iss. 1 Article 8 2002 Interpreting the Confrontation Clause: is There Dissension Among the Ranks - Lilly v. Virginia Kimberly G. Gore Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.mc.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Custom Citation 21 Miss. C. L. Rev. 83 (2001-2002) This Case Note is brought to you for free and open access by MC Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mississippi College Law Review by an authorized editor of MC Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact walter@mc.edu. INTERPRETING THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: Is THERE DISSENSION AMONG THE RANKS? Lilly v. Virginia 119 S.Ct. 1887 (1999) Kimberly G. Gore I. INTRODUCTION The right of an accused to confront witnesses against him has ancient roots. The Hebrews recognized the right of the accused to hear testimony given against him.' The Romans also allowed the accused to confront witnesses in person before conviction and sentencing Likewise, early English courts also recog- nized confrontation rights by allowing written questions to be given to witnesses.' The development of the confrontation doctrine in England faltered throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." Some courts refused to allow con- frontation rights to the accused.' Other courts only allowed the accused to con- front witnesses in felony cases.' Often, politics interfered with procedure, and the right to confrontation was discarded in many treason cases.7 In America, the right to confrontation developed
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Right to Confrontation- a New Approach to Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Trials
    PRESERVING THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION- A NEW APPROACH TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' I. INTRODUCTION Every state except Idaho has either statutory or constitutional lan- guage reflecting the sixth amendment's right to confrontation.2 A result similar to that required by the Constitution is provided by the common- law hearsay evidence rule, which prohibits the admission of evidence which the declarant has not given directly at trial and upon which he cannot be cross-examined However, the hearsay rule has been qualified by a number of specific exceptions developed by the courts and legislatures over the last two hundred years 4 Perhaps because of the similarities in result between the two rules, the courts have generally held that the right to confrontation is not violated by the admission of out-of-court statements which fit within one of the established exceptions to the hearsay rule.5 However, recent developments in the law of hearsay suggest a need to reconsider whether the delimitation of the constitutional right can be relegated solely to the minimally acceptable degrees of trustworthiness controlling the admission of hearsay. I U. S. CoNsT. amend. VI. 2 See 5 WIGMoRE, EviDENcE § 1397, at 127 n.1 (Supp. 1962) for the various state provisions. Added to this list should be ALASKA CoNsT. art. I § 11 (accused has right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him"). Idaho's protection must rest on the due process clause of her constitution.
    [Show full text]