The Rutgers Law Record
Export date: Sat Jun 22 10:35:41 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 1 | LexisNexis 2 | PDF 3
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 --> 4
  1. gers+L.+Rec.+75&FindType=F&ForceAction=Y&SV=Full&R S=ITK3.0&VR=1.0
  2. ATION_CODE=00142&searchtype=get&search=39 Rutgers L. Rec. 75
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

Export date: Sat Jun 22 10:35:41 2024 / +0000 GMT
This page was exported from The Rutgers Law Record [ ]
Export of Post and Page has been powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin from