We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION ISSUES POST-CRAWFORD: THE CHANGING COURSE OF TERRORISM TRIALS.
- Authors
WEIGEL, JESSICA K.
- Abstract
In 2004, the Supreme Court overhauled the established interpretation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it decided Crawford v. Washington. This Note attempts to augment the existing literature by elucidating the Crawford standard in the context of terrorism prosecutions in Article III courts. It details the shifts between Ohio v. Roberts and Crawford, analyzes subsequent federal case law, and tests the new framework on hypothetical terrorism fact patterns. This Note anticipates that for some types of evidence, such as ex parte affidavits and written summaries of testimony, the Crawford test will create significant hurdles for prosecutors in terrorism cases. A viable solution to this problem is for the government to make greater use of witness depositions abroad pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(c)(3).
- Subjects
UNITED States; HEARSAY evidence; CONFRONTATION clause (Law); CRAWFORD v. Washington; UNITED States. Supreme Court; TERRORISM -- Lawsuits &; claims; OHIO v. Roberts (Supreme Court case); CRIMINAL procedure; UNITED States. Constitution. 6th Amendment; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
New York University Law Review, 2014, Vol 89, Issue 4, p1488
- ISSN
0028-7881
- Publication type
Article