This page was exported from The Rutgers Law Record [ ]
Export date: Sat Jun 22 9:16:07 2024 / +0000 GMT

The Right to Confront Witnesses, but not Necessarily at Trial: Predicting a Judge-focused Remedy in Williams v. Illinois

39 Rutgers L. Rec. 75 (2012) | WestLaw | LexisNexis | PDF
In a recent New York Times op-ed piece, Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher predicted the outcome of Williams v. Illinois, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. Professor Fisher has argued that “a logical application of the law produces an easy answer” in Williams. The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment requires all persons who are “witnesses against” a criminal defendant, including lab analysts whose reports are not being offered into evidence at trial, to testify in court. We should trust Professor Fisher's analysis of Williams. After all, his argument in Crawford v. Washington was the genesis for the string of United States Supreme Court cases that give criminal defendants expanded rights under the Confrontation Clause.

View the entire article -->
Post date: 2012-03-23 18:41:03
Post date GMT: 2012-03-24 01:41:03
Post modified date: 2012-03-27 11:34:36
Post modified date GMT: 2012-03-27 18:34:36
Powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin. HTML saving format developed by gVectors Team