Search for: "Ex Parte Crawford" Results 61 - 80 of 123
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2012, 6:23 am by Howard Wasserman
Writing for the Court and adopting an explicitly historical approach to the Sixth Amendment (with prolonged discussion of Marianist ex parte affidavits and the treason trial of Sir Walter Raleigh), Scalia pushed the Court down an analytical path that had the potential to greatly constrain the ability of government to admit a range of hearsay statements against criminal defendants. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 6:41 am by Charles Johnson
They are also considered separate offenses for purposes of sentencing and of challenges under the Constitution’s ex post facto and double jeopardy clauses. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 3:49 am by Russ Bensing
  This is by far the more important part of the opinion, because it lays the groundwork for how the Court might deal with Crawford in the future. [read post]
6 May 2012, 5:26 am by Benjamin Wittes
 Seeing an opportunity, Bormann asks if, in the court’s experience, defense counsel ever has refused to take part in an 802 session without a recording of some kind being made. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:51 pm
Rather, only those solemn formal ex parte affidavits which accuse a particular individual of specific acts of wrongdoing or which were created by government officers solely for use as evidence against a specific defendant appear to fall within the parameter of "testimonial" hearsay for Confrontation Clause purposes. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 4:00 am by Russ Bensing
”  O’Donnell cites the judicial conduct rules on ex parte communications, and pointedly mentions that “We have disciplined judges for participating in unauthorized ex parte communications in several instances. [read post]
17 Mar 2012, 8:54 am by Doug Cassel
Plaintiffs’ lawyers now excuse their meetings on the ground that there are no rules on ex parte communications in Ecuador. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 5:54 am by Rob Robinson
Not So Easy - bit.ly/z5GZUe (Tam Harbert) Hacker Points to Weakness in LexisNexis Concordance - bit.ly/zjdXby (Evan Koblentz) Landmark E-Discovery Decision Recognizes the Appropriateness of Predictive Coding Review - bit.ly/yiwBVk (Squire Sanders) Electronic Medical Records: Legal Risks of Going Paperless - bit.ly/yLrr5x (Alicia Gallegos) Employment Discrimination Protocols for Discovery: They’re Coming - bit.ly/ycL6GF (Daniel Schwartz) Ethics… [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 3:36 am by Russ Bensing
  While Crawford involved the prototypical ex parte statement — a written statement to police as a result of an interrogation at the station — later decisions, like Davis v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 9:13 am
Then, Convening Authority Susan Crawford referred those charges for trial. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:30 am by Kevin
" Which I'm sure it was, except for the part that was hilarious. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 3:43 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
The CCA held that using videotaped testimony and written interrogatories from a child sex abuse victim did not satisfy Confrontation Clause requirements under the Supreme Court's recent Crawford decision, declaring, "We are unable to find any post-Crawford precedent from any jurisdiction that states, or even suggests, that a list of written interrogatories, posed by a forensic examiner to a child in an ex parte  interview, is a constitutional… [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 5:04 am by Brandon W. Barnett
  The CCA, on the other hand, explained: We are unable to find any post-Crawford precedent from any jurisdiction that states, or even suggests, that a list of written interrogatories, posed by a forensic examiner to a child in an ex parte interview, is a constitutional substitute for live cross-examination and confrontation...There was no "rigorous adversarial testing" of [the child victim's] testimonial statements by that greatest legal engine for… [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 5:17 am by Russ Bensing
  The Court gave a loose definition of what constituted a testimonial statement — an ex parte statement to a government official — but didn’t delve deeper into the question because it didn’t need to. [read post]