Articles related to confrontation clause - Page 3 of 7

Rule 45. This rule surprised me. Before I learned about it, I assumed that when a party sought to introduce hospital medical records at trial, a records custodian appeared in […]

My recent paper (here) on the use of remote testimony in criminal cases involving forensic analysts was written in part because of the flood of interest in legislative solutions to […]

I recently published a lengthy paper here examining the constitutionality of remote testimony in criminal trials under Crawford and the confrontation clause. In that paper I noted that the North […]

I’ve previously discussed the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the confrontation clause in this blog (here) and in numerous other publications (for example, here). In a nutshell, the forfeiture by […]

In a paper here I analyze Williams v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest confrontation decision on substitute analyst testimony. Because Williams was a fractured opinion in which no rationale […]

In yesterday’s post I set out the basics of the Bruton rule. Put simply, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), held that a defendant’s confrontation clause rights are […]

Although recent confrontation clause litigation has focused on the new Crawford rule, the Bruton rule continues to create issues in joint trials of codefendants. In this post I’ll give you […]

I recently wrote here about North Carolina’s notice and demand statutes and how they allow the State to obtain a constitutionally valid waiver of confrontation clause rights with respect to […]

Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. Bryant may have signaled a loosening of that Court’s interpretation of the key term “testimonial” as used in the Crawford confrontation […]

Under the new Crawford confrontation clause test, testimonial hearsay statements by declarants who do not testify at trial may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there has […]