Podcasts about Confrontation Clause

We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).

In this episode, I sit down with law student Troy for a really interesting chat about how criminal prosecution works, particularly when a victim isn't willing to testify. We look at what rights victims have in the legal system and how the state can still move forward with a case even if the victim isn't cooperating. We also take a look at laws like Marcy's Law in Ohio and how they impact things. Our conversation covers how these legal rules come into play in high-pressure situations and sheds light on important topics like evidence and confrontation rights. Plus, we discuss the unique challenges prosecutors face. Whether you're studying law or just curious about how criminal defense operates, this episode gives you a fascinating glimpse into the stuff you might not learn in law school but will definitely encounter in the field.Key Moments04:19 Prosecutors Shifting to Victims' Input06:42 "The Burning Bed" Synopsis11:23 Courtroom Debate: Prosecutor vs. Victim Rights14:15 "Matlock Moment in Court Dramas"16:56 Confrontation and Defendant's Rights19:25 Proving Guilt Without Victim Testimony22:29 Jury Doubt and Confrontation Clause27:15 "Mastering Rules Before Creativity"Here's what you'll discoverVictim's Role: Understand the implications of Marcy's Law and how victim input is dynamically shaping courtroom decisions - but not always as a deciding factor.Confrontation Conundrum: Gain clarity on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and its critical role in ensuring defendants can question their accusers in court, which is fundamental to fair trials.Evidential Challenges: Learn about how the absence of victim testimony creates hurdles for the prosecution and how hearsay exceptions can or cannot overcome these obstacles.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Lecture 3 of Criminal Law & Procedure focuses on constitutional safeguards in criminal cases, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as pretrial and trial procedures.The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, regulates confessions, and prohibits double jeopardy. Key aspects include:Miranda warnings must be given to suspects in custody before interrogation, informing them of their right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that anything said can be used against them. These warnings apply only to custodial interrogations, where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.Voluntary confessions are admissible, but those obtained through coercion or psychological manipulation are not.The privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. This right does not extend to physical evidence.Double jeopardy prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. However, there are exceptions, such as separate sovereignties, mistrials, and civil proceedings.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, a speedy trial, jury trials, and confrontation of witnesses.The right to counsel applies at all critical stages of prosecution, including arraignments, plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing6. This right was extended to indigent defendants in state courts by Gideon vs Wainwright.The right to a speedy trial prevents indefinite delays and is balanced against factors that could justify delays.Defendants have the right to an impartial jury, and racial discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by Batson vs Kentucky. Jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous, per Ramos vs Louisiana.The Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants can cross-examine witnesses testifying against them.Pretrial and trial procedures covered include:Grand Juries determine probable cause for bringing formal charges in federal cases.Bail is set based on factors such as flight risk and danger to the public. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail.Plea bargains resolve most criminal cases. These agreements must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.Discovery requires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.The burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Sentencing is determined by judges based on guidelines.Post-conviction relief may be sought through appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

On today's episode Jake looks at the recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision of State v. Clark, COA23-1133. In Clark, the Court applied the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Arizona (listen to Episode 222 for an analysis of that case) to North Carolina. The Clark Court ultimately found a violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred where a substitute analyst gave expert testimony which was based on a lab report by another analyst who did not testify without independent testing. Walk through the highlights of the Clark case and learn how ChatGPT can be utilized to draft a case brief, write a legal memo, prepare a motion to suppress in Microsoft Word, and create cross-examination questions.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?     The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Confrontation Clause applies to “testimonial hearsay,” that is, out-of-court statements introduced for their truth. The key question is whether the non-testifying analyst's lab statements were introduced for their truth or for another purpose. The Court rejected Arizona's argument that the statements were only used to show the basis of the non-testifying expert opinion, not for their truth.  Evidentiary rules do not control whether a statement is admitted for its truth; this is a constitutional question. When an expert conveys out-of-court statements to support their opinion, and those statements only support the opinion if true, then the statements have been offered for their truth. The jury cannot evaluate the expert's credibility without assessing the truth of the underlying statements. In this case, the expert's testimony relied entirely on accepting the non-testifying analyst's statements as true. His opinions were predicated on the truth of what the analyst reported about her lab work. Allowing this practice would undermine previous decisions in Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming and allow easy evasion of the Confrontation Clause. Therefore, the non-testifying analyst's statements were introduced for their truth, violating Smith's confrontation rights if the statements were testimonial. The Court remanded for determination of whether the statements were testimonial by looking at each statement's “primary purpose.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch did not join the Court's analysis of when a statement is “testimonial,” and each wrote separately to explain how they differed. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, arguing that the majority unnecessarily complicated the matter and should have found that the testimony sought to prove the truth of the statements and was, therefore, inadmissible hearsay subject to the Confrontation Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The Supreme Court's latest term was marked by decisions of enormous consequence. However, the way the Court has communicated about these rulings far undersells the gravity they carry.While “expressing itself in extremely modest terms,” Professor Jeffrey Fisher says, the current Supreme Court has “[handed] down decisions that have enormously consequential effects for our democracy, people's rights, and everything in between.” He and Assistant Professor Easha Anand, co-directors of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, agree that these recent decisions could reshape American law and politics for years to come.In this episode of Stanford Legal with host Pam Karlan, Fisher, and Anand take a critical look at recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion, gun rights, tech platforms, and the power of federal agencies, examining the Court's evolving approach and considering the potential long-term impacts on American democracy and the rule of law.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jeff Fisher >>> Stanford Law School PageEasha Anand >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction to the Supreme Court Term and Key CasesPam Karlan is joined by Professors Jeff Fisher and Easha Anand to discuss the past term at the Supreme Court, constitutional law and Supreme Court practice, highlighting key cases and themes from the term. They explore how the court's conservative majority shapes the docket and the role of Justices Barrett and Jackson in developing their judicial voices.(00:06:56) Chapter 2: High-Profile Cases: Guns, Abortion, and Administrative LawExamine major cases, including gun rights in Rahimi v. United States and Cargill v. Garland, abortion-related cases, and the pivotal Loper Bright decision affecting the administrative state. They analyze the court's reasoning and the broader implications of these rulings.(00:15:28) Chapter 3: The Court's Evolving Role and MethodologyDiscussion of the broader implications of the Supreme Court's evolving approach to its docket and decision-making processes, particularly in relation to the administrative state and the impact of recent rulings on future cases.(00:19:14) Chapter 4: The Supreme Court and Technology CasesThey delve into the significant technology cases that were brought before the Supreme Court this term. They discuss how the Court addressed state laws from Florida and Texas aimed at restricting content moderation by big tech companies, marking the first time the First Amendment was applied to social media platforms. The discussion highlights the tension between traditional legal frameworks and the evolving digital landscape, with a focus on the implications of these rulings for the future of free speech online.(00:24:10) Chapter 5: Trump and the Supreme Court: Balancing Power and ImmunityThe group explores the complex legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump's involvement in Supreme Court cases. Easha Anand provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump v. United States case, where the Court examined the extent of presidential immunity concerning acts related to the 2020 election. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of the Court's rulings on Trump's legal challenges, including how these decisions might shape future presidential conduct and accountability.(00:29:27) Chapter 6: Supreme Court's Role in Protecting DemocracyPam Karlan and Jeff Fisher discuss the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding democratic processes. They analyze the Court's reluctance to engage deeply in political matters, such as the January 6th prosecution and political gerrymandering, highlighting the tension between judicial restraint and the need to protect democratic values. The chapter concludes with reflections on the broader implications of these decisions for the future of U.S. democracy, particularly in the context of voting rights and election integrity.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Samia v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment? The case was decided on June 23, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause where the confession as modified did not directly inculpate the defendant but used the descriptor “other person” and the jury was instructed to consider the confession only as to the codefendant. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion of the Court. Historically, a non-testifying codefendant's confession was permissible if the jury was instructed not to consider it against the nonconfessing defendant. The Court in Bruton v United States, recognized an exception to that general rule, holding “that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a non-testifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial,” even with a proper instruction. However, the Court established certain outer limits on the Bruton rule. For example, in Richardson v Marsh, the Court did not extend the rule to confessions that do not name the defendant, although, in Gray v Maryland, the Court clarified that some redacted confessions might still be directly accusatory if the redaction is evident. Here, the confession was redacted to avoid naming the defendant, aligning with the Bruton rule and differing from the confession in Gray. The Court declined to further extend the Bruton rule, reasoning that its extension would disrupt historical practices and necessitate extensive pretrial hearings, potentially leading to mandatory severance in joint trials when introducing a non-testifying codefendant's confession. This would undermine the role of joint trials and the significance of confessions in the legal system. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion except the historical discussion, which, in her separate concurrence, she argues is beside the point. She would limit consideration to the meaning of the Confrontation Clause at the time of the founding and reach the same conclusion. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, arguing that the non-testifying codefendant's confession in this case inculpated the defendant in the same way that the Court recognized it would in other cases. Justice Kagan criticized the majority for “permitting an end-run around the Court's precedent and undermining a vital constitutional protection for the accused.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.

On today's episode Jake reviews the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Arizona. This 9-0 decision provides clarity on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause violations that occur when the state tries to substitute a lab analyst at trial who did not herself test the substances or blood at the lab. Don't miss the big implications this opinion has on your blood draw DWI case!  

This week's episode once again covers former President Donald Trump's cases before the Supreme Court, dealing mostly with Trump v. U.S. (whether a President has absolute immunity for criminal actions), but also covering Fischer v. U.S. (whether a statute meant to resolve evidence tampering can also be applied against January 6th Defendants).  Brett and Nazim, always sensitive to your tolerance for Trump cases, also give you a crash course in the Confrontation Clause in the third act of this episode by covering Smith v. Arizona.  Law starts at (05:43).

Welcome to Module 4, where we'll examine the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment is a vital component of the Bill of Rights, providing critical protections for individuals accused of crimes. It guarantees the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel. This module will delve deeply into each of these rights, exploring their historical background, legal interpretations, and contemporary relevance. Right to Counsel. Attachment of the Right. The right to counsel is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial. It attaches when a defendant faces a critical stage of prosecution, such as arraignment, trial, sentencing, and certain post-conviction proceedings. Historical Background and Development: Traced back to the 1932 Powell v. Alabama case, where the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of counsel in capital cases. The landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) expanded this right, guaranteeing counsel to all defendants in felony cases. Effective Assistance of Counsel. The Sixth Amendment not only guarantees the right to counsel but also ensures that this representation is effective. Criteria for Effective Assistance: Competent Representation: Counsel must possess the knowledge, skill, and diligence reasonably necessary to provide competent representation. Advocacy Free of Conflict of Interest: The representation must be free from conflicts that could impair loyalty to the client. Strickland Test: A two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington is used to evaluate ineffectiveness claims, requiring a defendant to show deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice. Speedy and Public Trial. Determining the Speedy Trial Period. The right to a speedy trial protects defendants from undue delays that can compromise the fairness of the trial and cause unnecessary anxiety and concern. Factors in Determining Speediness: Length of Delay: The length of the delay is the threshold factor. Reason for the Delay: Delays caused by the prosecution or for tactical advantage weigh against the government. Defendant's Assertion of the Right: Whether and how often the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial. Prejudice to the Defendant: Consideration of the prejudice to the defendant, such as impaired defense, anxiety, and public suspicion. Implications of a Violation. Violation of the right to a speedy trial can result in various remedies, including: Dismissal of Charges: The most common remedy for a violation of the right to a speedy trial. Reduced Sentence: In some cases, a violation can lead to a reduced sentence rather than dismissal. Confrontation Clause. Right to Confront Witnesses. The Confrontation Clause provides an accused the right to confront the witnesses against them. This is a critical component of a fair trial, ensuring the defendant can challenge the evidence presented. Application and Importance: Cross-Examination: The primary interest secured by the Confrontation Clause is the right of cross-examination. Exceptions: There are exceptions, such as in cases of child testimony in abuse cases or where the witness is unavailable but has given prior testimony. Exceptions and Limitations. While the Confrontation Clause is a fundamental right, certain exceptions and limitations apply: Forfeiture by Wrongdoing: If a defendant is found to have wrongfully caused a witness's unavailability, they forfeit the right to confront that witness. Statements Not Testimonial in Nature: Certain statements made for purposes other than legal proceedings may not trigger the right of confrontation. Reliability and Necessity: In some cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the admission of evidence where it is deemed reliable and necessary for the trial. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?

Defining Hearsay: Understanding the fundamental concept of hearsay. Recognizing that hearsay involves out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The Hearsay Rule: Learning the basic hearsay rule, which generally excludes hearsay evidence. Grasping the rationale behind this rule and its connection to the reliability of evidence. Hearsay Exceptions: Exploring various exceptions that allow certain hearsay statements to be admitted. Understanding the conditions and justifications for these exceptions. Confrontation Clause and Crawford v Washington: Learning about the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Analyzing the landmark Supreme Court case Crawford v Washington and its impact on hearsay. Case Study and Questions: Applying the principles of hearsay to a fictional case scenario. Addressing questions to test your knowledge of hearsay and its exceptions. Now, let's begin our exploration of hearsay evidence. 1. Defining Hearsay. Understanding the Fundamental Concept of Hearsay: Hearsay is a central concept in evidence law, and it refers to an out-of-court statement that is offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. In other words, hearsay is when someone tries to prove the truth of a statement by offering another person's statement as evidence. This can include written or spoken statements made outside the courtroom. For example, if a witness in a trial says, "I heard John say that the defendant was at the scene of the crime," that statement is considered hearsay because it is offered to prove that the defendant was, indeed, at the scene of the crime. Recognizing that Hearsay Involves Out-of-Court Statements: Hearsay statements are typically made outside of the courtroom and are relayed to the court through witnesses. Courts generally regard hearsay as less reliable because the declarant (the person who made the out-of-court statement) is not under oath and subject to cross-examination when the statement is made. Hearsay evidence is often excluded because it poses a risk of inaccuracy, unreliability, and unfairness. However, there are exceptions to this rule that allow certain hearsay statements to be admitted based on principles of necessity and reliability. 2. The Hearsay Rule. Learning the Basic Hearsay Rule: The basic hearsay rule is simple: hearsay statements are generally not admissible as evidence in court. This rule is rooted in the idea that for evidence to be reliable, it must be subject to cross-examination, and out-of-court statements don't allow for this scrutiny. Grasping the Rationale Behind this Rule: The rationale behind the hearsay rule is to ensure that the evidence presented in court is trustworthy and accurate. By allowing only firsthand testimony and excluding statements made outside the courtroom, the legal system aims to prevent unreliable or fabricated evidence from being presented to the trier of fact. While the hearsay rule serves the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of the legal process, it is essential to understand that there are exceptions. These exceptions are grounded in the belief that certain types of hearsay statements are inherently reliable or necessary for justice to be served. 3. Hearsay Exceptions. Exploring Various Exceptions that Allow Certain Hearsay Statements to be Admitted: There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, each with its own set of criteria and justifications for admissibility. Some common hearsay exceptions include: Excited Utterance: Statements made under the stress or excitement of a startling event are considered more reliable and may be admitted as an exception to hearsay. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Safeguarding Fair and Just Criminal Trials. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a pivotal role in ensuring that criminal defendants are afforded a fair and just trial. This amendment outlines a set of fundamental rights designed to protect individuals facing criminal charges and to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. Let's delve into the key components of the Sixth Amendment: 1. Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial. The Sixth Amendment grants individuals the right to a fair and speedy trial. This means that criminal cases should be resolved without undue delay, and defendants should have the opportunity to present their case promptly. Significance: The right to a speedy trial is essential to prevent individuals from languishing in jail for extended periods before trial. It also ensures that evidence and witnesses remain available and reliable. Example: If a person is arrested and charged with a crime, the government is obligated to bring the case to trial within a reasonable time. Delays caused by the prosecution or the court that prejudice the defendant's case may violate this right. 2. Right to Legal Counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel. Specifically, it states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." Significance: The right to legal counsel ensures that individuals accused of crimes have access to competent representation to navigate the complexities of the legal system. Legal counsel plays a crucial role in safeguarding defendants' rights and ensuring a fair trial. Example: When an individual is charged with a crime, they have the right to an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them, typically a public defender, to represent their interests. 3. Right to Confront Witnesses. The Sixth Amendment grants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" the accused. This principle, known as the Confrontation Clause, means that individuals facing criminal charges have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses testifying against them. Significance: The Confrontation Clause is vital in ensuring that the accused can challenge the credibility and accuracy of witness testimony. It prevents the use of anonymous or secret witnesses. Example: If a witness provides testimony against a defendant in court, the defendant's attorney has the right to cross-examine that witness, asking questions to test the witness's credibility and accuracy. 4. Right to Compulsory Process. The Sixth Amendment includes the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." This means that individuals accused of a crime have the right to compel the attendance of favorable witnesses to testify on their behalf. Significance: The right to compulsory process empowers defendants to present evidence and witnesses who can support their case. It ensures that they have the means to challenge the prosecution's evidence effectively. Example: If a defendant believes that a particular witness can provide valuable testimony that supports their innocence, they have the right to compel that witness to appear and testify in court. 5. Right to an Impartial Jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury. The jury is expected to be fair, unbiased, and free from outside influence. Significance: An impartial jury is essential to the integrity of the trial process. It ensures that the case is decided based on the evidence presented in court rather than preconceived biases. Example: During jury selection, both the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to question potential jurors to identify any potential biases or prejudices that could affect their ability to be impartial. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Does admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment? Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Samia v. United States (2023) Access additional resources about this case on oyez.org: Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.  

We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.

On June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held “the Confrontation Clause […]

On June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in Samia v. United States. The main question at issue in the case was whether the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held “the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.”In this Post-Decision Courthouse Steps webinar, we broke down and analyzed the Court's decision. Featuring:--Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

CHECKPOINTS State v. Parham, 2022 NCCOA 584 (N.C. App. 2022) (unpublished) Holding: Signed authorization of a checkpoint by a supervising officer prior to its initiation is irrelevant as long as the supervising officer gives sufficient verbal instruction on how the checkpoint is to be conducted. Practice tips: (1) focus cross-examination on the specific instructions (verbal or written) being given by the supervisory officer prior to the checkpoint commencing; (2) sequester officers when challenging a checkpoint case. REASONABLE SUSPICION State v. Abernathy, 2022 NCCOA 607 (N.C. App. 2022) (unpublished) Holding: Reasonable suspicion exists to stop a driver travelling under the speed limit in the left lane for a prolonged period causing other vehicles on the highway to pass in the right lane. State v. Barstow, 2022 NCCOA 368 (N.C. App 2022) (unpublished) Holding: An officer dispatched to investigate a domestic dispute has reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle matching the color, make, and model of the one connected to the domestic dispute leaving the subdivision where the domestic dispute occurred. State v. Bolick, 2022 NCCOA 875 (N.C. App 2022) (unpublished) Holding: Reasonable suspicion to stop exists based on an anonymous tip where the 911 caller has face-to-face interaction with the Defendant, smells an odor of alcohol, was tailgated by Defendant, gave the make, model, and license plate of Defendant's vehicle, and told the dispatcher which direction the vehicle was travelling. Practice tip: The Court goes through a lengthy analysis of traffic stops based on an anonymous tip. If you have an anonymous tip case be prepared to distinguish Bolick from your case. State v. Duncan, 2023 NCCOA 5 (N.C. App. 2023) Holding: Reasonable suspicions exists if an officer believes that a driver has a medically cancelled license. State v. Dyer, 2022 NCCOA 880 (N.C. App. 2022) (unpublished) Holding: No reasonable suspicion exists when a stop is based on Defendant's failure to use a turn signal if no other vehicle will be affected by Defendant's turn. EXPERT TESTIMONY State v. Lewis, 2022 NCCOA 887 (N.C. App. 2022) (unpublished) Holding: Based on the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a1)(2), an officer who does not hold a currentcertification as a drug recognition expert (DRE) cannot testify that Defendant was under the influence of one or more impairing substances, or the drug category of such impairing substances. [The trial court erred in allowing such testimony, but the Court of Appeals found in this case the error was not prejudicial.] Practice tip: With the rise of ARIDE officers don't let the state get around the rigid requirements of Rule 702. The opinion is either lay or expert opinion and lay opinion is not allowed in this arena. RIGHT TO SILENCE State v. Dunn, 2022 NCCOA 818 (N.C. App. 2022) (unpublished) Holding: Despite erroneous admission of statements into evidence regarding Defendant's refusal to answer questions after being advised of his Miranda rights, the error was harmless. BLOOD DRAW State v. Bobbitt, No. COA22-510 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished) Holding: Medical reports or records created for treatment purposes are not testimonial in nature and as such do not implicate the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. State v. Cannon, No. COA22-572 (N.C. App. 2023) Facts: Defendant was involved in a head on collision with another vehicle killing the driver. Investigating officers found beer cans and an aerosol can of “ultra Duster” in Defendant's vehicle. Officers noticed an odor of alcohol on Defendant, slurred speech and glassy eyes. About two hours after the accident, Defendant's blood was taken at the hospital by law enforcement. At the time of the blood draw, no warrant had been issued and no implied consent had been given under N.C.G.S. § 20-16.2. Holding: Based on the time it took to investigate an accident involving a fatality, the time to transport the Defendant to the hospital, the lack of police assistance for the investigating officers, and the extra time it would have taken to prepare and submit a search warrant, exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search of Defendant's blood. Practice tip: In distinguishing Cannon, focus on the (1) the fatality investigation; (2) lack of police assistance; and (3) drug impairment case. Cf. State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678 (N.C. 2017). SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE State v. Rouse, 2022 NCCOA 496 (N.C. App. 2022) Holding: Sufficient circumstantial evidence of driving was presented in this case by the State to avoid a Motion to Dismiss. SENTENCING State v. Adams, 2022 NCCOA 845 (N.C. App. 2022) Holding: N.C.G.S. § 20-179(r) does not authorize a judge to mandate a transfer from supervised to unsupervised probation on the passage of a certain amount of time. Practice tip: On a level 3, 4 or 5 sentence make sure that the judge is following the mandates of N.C.G.S. § 20-179(r) in requiring supervised versus unsupervised probation. State v. King, No. COA22-469 (N.C. App. 2023) Holding: N.C.G.S. § 20-179(a2)(2) requires a jury to decide whether aggravating factors exist.   Practice tip: There appears to be grounds for an argument based on this holding that the statutory framework providing that prior convictions under 20-179(c) fall within the purview of the judge vs. the jury is not permissible and a jury should decide. (One aggravating factor found by the superior court judge in this case was a prior conviction of death by motor vehicle). DWLR IMPAIRED State v. Rabas, No. COA22-616 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished) Facts: Defendant was charged with DWI. Immediately upon release, defendant went back to his car and drove away. He was stopped again and charged with a second DWI and DWLR impaired. Holding: Defendant possessed actual and constructive knowledge that his license was revoked creating sufficient evidence for conviction of DWLR impaired.

The Supreme Court's 2022 term is coming to an end, so it's time for a couple of Supreme Court roundup episodes. Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to discuss U.S. v. Texas, an important opinion about standing; U.S. v. Hansen, which deals with an overbreadth challenge to a federal criminal statute; and Samia v. U.S., which is about the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Professor Krent will be back with Robert on July 7th to review some of the Court's final opinions for this term, including a few blockbusters on affirmative action and the First Amendment. Enjoy the discussion and stay tuned.****Check out the Florida Bar's new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years' experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. The Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Brett and Nazim continue last week's episode of covering new cases on the docket in 2023, which include Samia v. U.S. (does the Confrontation Clause bar vague, redacted accusations), Groff v. DeJoy (what level of accommodation do employers have to provide for religious exceptions, and Counterman v. Colorado (what level of mens rea is necessary when you are threatening people online).  Law starts at (2:20)

In this two-for-one Teleforum, we will cover two cases with questions concerning criminal law and procedure that were argued before the Court at the end of March. On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. Two issues are presented to the Court by this case. One, whether, when there are multiple charges associated with a trial, lack of venue as to one count requires vacatur of the convictions for other counts. Two, what is the proper remedy when someone is tried in an improper venue? Is the government's failure to prove venue equal to an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or can the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue?The next day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. In it, the Court is set to consider whether the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.In this recorded webinar, we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court in these two cases, united by the Court before which they are set to be argued and the fact they pose questions of proper procedure in criminal cases. Featuring: --Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-196.html

A case in which the Court held that admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Criminal Procedure: Does admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that inculpates a defendant violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause? - Argued: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:58:59 EDT

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal that could force prosecutors to reconsider their tactics in criminal cases. This includes what evidence to introduce and how to try multiple defendants. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson & Greg Stohr will break down the questions posed in Samia v. United States which is set for argument March 29. The murder-for-hire case focuses on the Sixth Amendment requirement that criminal defendants be allowed to “confront” witnesses against them at trial. The justices will consider what steps the government must take to protect the identity of co-defendants identified in another's confession to avoid colliding with the Confrontation Clause. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A Vexatious Litigant Is a plaintiff who has filed at least five lawsuits in Propria Persona. Someone who re-litigates the same topic or conflict against the same defendant and files frivolous paperwork in order to prolong the proceedings. Under Sanctions or CONTEMPT OF COURT, a vexatious plaintiff is susceptible to a pre-filing order!The phrase refers to activities taken by the losing party that were frivolous, irrational, or without foundation, even if they were not brought in bad faith.A "simp" is a male who does something kind for a girl in the hopes of getting her to date him, only to be disappointed when she doesn't. It's built on the concept of being subservient to your lover, and while both men and women engage in the social media fad, the memes are usually created by men.oldVexatious Litigant is a plaintiff who maintained in Propria Persona files at least five litigations.  Someone who repeatedly re-litigates the same issue or controversy against the same defendant and repeatedly files frivolous paperwork intended to cause unnecessary delay. A vexatious litigant is subjected to a pre-filing order under Sanctions or CONTEMPT OF COURT! The term `vexatious' means that the losing party's actions were `frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.'" Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. Service Employees Int'l Union, 746 F.2d 1503, 1510 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Defend Your Sixth Amendment Rights. NO SIMPThe privilege against self-incrimination is retained by insistence upon by BELLIGERENT claimant in “person.” SIMP is not allowed is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto.  It is a FIGHTING clause. Its benefits can be retained and sustained COMBAT in any court. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor.  bIt is valid only by when insisted upon by BELLIGERENT claimant in “person.”It is rooted in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment,” United States vs. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 Supreme Court.

It's the end the term, so this week's episode ties up loose ends, which include: a mea culpa on cannon ownership (2:00); the plan so far for the Season Finale episode (5:00); discussion on Concepcion v. U.S. (how judge's should interpret the First Step Act), Hemphill v. NY (whether there are exceptions to the Confrontation Clause, and Ruan v. U.S. (mens rea requirements for doctors violate drug distribution laws).

Episode 76: 6th Amendment - The Confrontation Clause

David Greco heads up the appellate practice at the probate litigation firm RMO, LLP. David shares with co-hosts Jeff Lewis and Tim Kowal some of the unique features and challenges in probate appeals:

Jeter v. Sam's Club - “mode of operation” does not apply where the grapes are in closed containers versus open top bags; trail court not to handle motions in limine as dispositive motionsRivera v. Union County Prosecutor's Office - Common law right to demand Internal Affairs investigation report - redacted for confidentiality even when prohibited under OPRAState v. Anthony Sims, Jr. - Miranda process must include clear statement about charges - no need for police to predict other future charges; preliminary hearing testimony - witness subject to cross examination by defense - meets requirement for admission under the Confrontation ClauseCongrats to Bruce Greenberg - 2,000 Posts on the AppellateLaw-NJ.com BlogThe 2,000th Post on This Blog: The Anniversary of Campbell v. Department of Civil ServiceBy Bruce D. Greenberg on Apr 01, 2022 05:34 pmThe BOLD SIDEBAR 5-star Rating where you listen to Podcasts.Check out our sound engineer Nick Bates at: Bandcamp - https://nick-bates.bandcamp.com and Twitter - https://twitter.com/nickbatesmusic

Trial procedure. Compulsory process. U.S. Constitution amendment 6 provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . . . The Compulsory Process Clause guarantees the defendant the right to obtain favorable witnesses at trial. For example, the Clause prevents a jurisdiction from precluding defendants from calling their co defendants as witnesses. Similarly, the Clause prevents the government from deporting a witness whose testimony would have been both material and favorable to the defense. The right does not preempt reasonable procedural rules. Thus, the right does not prevent the preclusion of defense witnesses as a discovery sanction. Confrontation. U.S. Constitution amendment 6 provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . . In Crawford v Washington (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars the "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial" unless pursuant to one of the "exceptions established at the time of the founding." "When the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements . . . so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it." In Davis v Washington (2006), the Court held that the Clause places no restrictions on nontestimonial statements. Crawford did not completely define the term "testimonial." But, Crawford held that, "whatever else the term covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations." Laboratory reports of forensic tests are also testimonial, conferring on the defendant a right to cross-examine the analyst who certifies them. Statements made during police interrogation are nontestimonial if circumstances objectively indicate "that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency" but are testimonial if circumstances objective indicate "that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." "he relevant inquiry is not the subjective or actual purpose of the individuals involved in a particular encounter, but rather the purpose that reasonable participants would have had, as ascertained from the individuals' statements and actions and the circumstances in which the encounter occurred." One exception established at the founding is if the witness is "unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Another such exception is "forfeiture by wrongdoing," for example where the defendant intends to obtain and obtains the absence of the witness by wrongdoing. Still another exception is "the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." Another possible exception is for dying declarations, for example statements made by a speaker on the brink of death while aware that he or she is dying.

The Modest Impact of the Modern Confrontation Clause. Diana Bibb from William & Mary Law School discusses her paper with Jeff Bellin exploring the intersection of hearsay and the modern Confrontation Clause, and suggesting that Crawford's impact may be far more limited that commonly thought.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Under the impartial jury requirement, jurors must be unbiased, and the jury must consist of a representative cross-section of the community. The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months. In Barker v Wingo, the Supreme Court articulated a balancing test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. It has additionally held that the requirement of a public trial is not absolute, and that both the government and the defendant can in some cases request a closed trial. The Sixth Amendment requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them. The amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, while the Compulsory Process Clause gives criminal defendants the right to call their own witnesses and, in some cases, compel witnesses to testify. The Assistance of Counsel Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be assisted by counsel. In Gideon v Wainwright and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that a public defender must be provided to criminal defendants unable to afford an attorney in all trials where the defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment. Text. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated weekend global news podcast covering US law and politics anchored by Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok, has launched a special weekly Wednesday short-form edition providing a piercing but entertaining look a few topics ripped from today's headlines. The midweek pod is co-anchored by veteran prosecutor, policy analyst and defense counsel, Karen Friedman Agnifilo (“KFA”), and national trial attorney and strategist, Michael Popok (“Popok”). On this midweek episode, Popok and KFA tackle: (1) Last week's SCOTUS decision in Hemphill v. New York making a criminal defendant's cross-examination rights under the 6th Amendment's “Confrontation Clause” more robust; (2) the plot to kidnap Michigan's Governor Whitmer, the use of undercover agents and informants, and the entrapment defense; and (3) Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta) DA Willis has a new and approved Special Grand Jury to assist her investigation of possible election fraud by Trump and others, and what it all means. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being technical.

QUESTION PRESENTED:A litigant's argumentation or introduction of evidence at trial is often deemed to “open the door” to the admission of responsive evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence.The question presented is: Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant, whose argumentation or introduction of evidence at trial “opens the door” to the admission of responsive evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence, also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, in our "Listen and Learn" series, we take a look at the Confrontation Clause. Confrontation Clause issues are commonly tested in Evidence questions in both law school exams and bar exams, almost always alongside hearsay issues. In this episode we discuss: Reviewing the rules of the Confrontation Clause The relationship between Confrontation Clause and hearsay questions How to determine whether a statement made to the police is testimonial in nature, or the Primary Purpose Test Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2007 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/February-2007-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination, July 2018 (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July2018_CBX.pdf) Podcast Episode 261: Listen and Learn – The Basics of Hearsay (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-261-listen-and-learn-the-basics-of-hearsay/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-301-listen-and-learn-the-confrontation-clause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, in our "Listen and Learn" series, we take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Confrontation Clause. Confrontation Clause issues are commonly tested in Evidence questions in both law school exams and bar exams, almost always alongside hearsay issues.  In this episode, we discuss: Reviewing the rules of the Confrontation Clause The relationship between Confrontation Clause and hearsay questions How to determine whether a statement made to the police is testimonial in nature, or the Primary Purpose Test Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2007 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/February-2007-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination, July 2018 (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July2018_CBX.pdf) Podcast Episode 89: Listen and Learn – What Is Hearsay? (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-89-listen-and-learn-what-is-hearsay/) Tackling MBE Hearsay Questions (https://barexamtoolbox.com/tackling-mbe-hearsay-questions/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-137-listen-and-learn-the-confrontation-clause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless he believed the statement was true. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability. Some states, such as California, extend the prejudice to "hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community." The admissibility of evidence under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule is often limited by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. A declaration against interest differs from a party admission because here the declarant does not have to be a party to the case, but must have a basis for knowing that the statement is true. Furthermore, evidence of the statement will only be admissible if the declarant is unavailable to testify. Res gestae (Latin "things done") is a term found in substantive and procedural American jurisprudence and English law. In American substantive law, it refers to the start-to-end period of a felony. In American procedural law, it refers to a former exception to the hearsay rule for statements made spontaneously or as part of an act. The English and Canadian version of res gestae is similar but is still recognized as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule. In the law of evidence, an implied assertion is a statement or conduct that implies a side issue surrounding certain admissible facts which have not necessarily been complied with the rules of relevance. There is varying opinion of whether hearsay evidence of implied assertions should be admissible in court to prove the issue within contents. While they are considered hearsay, they are generally considered to some extent unreliable than regular statements which are less easy to be fabricated. A present sense impression, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person (the declarant) that conveys his or her sense of the state of an event or the condition of something. The statement must be spontaneously made while the person was perceiving (for example, contemporaneous with) the event or condition, or "immediately thereafter." The permissible time lapse between event and statement may range from seconds to minutes, but probably not hours. The subject matter and content of the statement are limited to descriptions or explanations of the event or condition, therefore opinions, inferences, or conclusions about the event or condition are not present sense impressions. An example of present sense impression is of a person saying, "it's cold" or "we're going really fast". A learned treatise, in the law of evidence, is a text that is sufficiently authoritative in its field to be admissible as evidence in a court in support of the contentions made therein. With respect to authentication, an "ancient document" is one that may be deemed authentic without a witness to attest to the circumstances of its creation because its age suggests that it is unlikely to have been falsified in anticipation of the litigation in which it is introduced. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Confrontation in the Age of Plea Bargaining. Will Ortman from Wayne State University argues for a modern interpretation of the Confrontation Clause that would give defendants a right to criminal depositions and that would in turn promote more informed and accurate plea bargaining.

Unmasking Demeanor. Julia Simon-Kerr from the University of Connecticut discusses the masking of witnesses in the courtroom during the COVID-19 pandemic and the implications masking might have on the Confrontation Clause and the way the legal system views the importance of demeanor.

Confronting Memory Loss. Paul Rothstein from Georgetown discusses the problems that a witness's memory loss presents for the Confrontation Clause, and the factors that a future Supreme Court might use to address this question.

Since the beginning of the impeachment proceedings against the President, Donald Trump has insisted he has a right to confront “the whistleblower,” the anonymous member of the intelligence community who set the whole thing in motion. There is a Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says a defendant in a criminal case has the right to face their accuser. But does this clause apply to the impeachment hearing against a president in Congress?

Since the beginning of the impeachment proceedings against the President, Donald Trump has insisted he has a right to confront “the whistleblower,” the anonymous member of the intelligence community who set the whole thing in motion. There is a Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says a defendant in a criminal case has the right to face their accuser. But does this clause apply to the impeachment hearing against a president in Congress?

In 1992, appellant Edward Martin was convicted in California of sexual batterAppellant Ronnie Bila Shaka was charged with violating a domestic abuse no-contact order that prohibited him from having contact with his wife. When Shaka’s wife failed to appear for the jury trial, the State moved to admit her out-of-court statements to a law enforcement officer regarding Shaka’s contact with her, arguing that the statements were admissible under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause. In support of its motion, the State submitted recordings of telephone calls Shaka made while in jail awaiting trial. The district court granted the State’s motion and the jury found Shaka guilty. The court of appeals affirmed Shaka’s conviction. On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the State established that Shaka forfeited his right to confront his wife. (Hennepin County)y. Martin eventually moved to Minnesota. In 2005, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) informed Martin that he was required to register for life as a predatory offender in Minnesota because of his California conviction. In August 2016, Martin registered with the BCA as homeless. In February 2017, respondent the State of Minnesota charged Martin with failing to register as a predatory offender between August 19, 2016, and September 28, 2016. The State alleged that Martin had failed to comply with a requirement to check in with law enforcement on a weekly basis. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3a(e) (2018). After a court trial based on stipulated evidence, the district court found Martin guilty. The court of appeals affirmed Martin’s conviction. On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the State proved that Martin was required to register as a predatory offender between August 19, 2016, and September 28, 2016. (Hennepin County)

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at Donald Trump's favorite "liberal," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as seen through the eyes of one of his former students. We begin, however, with an update from the Paul Manafort trial, taking a look at the prosecution's strategy, witness list, and some preliminary rulings by Judge Ellis. After that, we dive very deeply into what looks like a very weird phenomenon:  why is Alan Dershowitz carrying water for a President whom he ostensibly opposes?  Why is he saying things that are demonstrably and indefensibly untrue about the law? Andrew has a theory.  Mostly, though, he has stories and research... but they lead to a theory (we promise)! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding constitutional law and a state vs. the federal Confrontation Clause.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is the article in The Hill indicating that the prosecution would, in fact, call Rick Gates; earlier, friend of the show Randall Eliason gave a bunch of reasons why they might not.  Oh, and Eliason also has you covered as to why 'collusion' is, in fact, a crime. This is the laughable Fox News report on how Judge Ellis hates the prosecution; for a dose of reality, you might want to check out this other article in The Hill about how Judge Ellis chastised both sides's lawyers. If you missed it, this is our Episode 107 where we tackled Serial. Here's the PBS retrospective on Dershowitz and the OJ trial. Our Dershowitz story on 'testilying' begins with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and the origins of the exclusionary rule; Dershowitz coined the term 'testilying' in this New York Times article from 1994. Testilying is, of course, a consistent problem today (see A, B) -- but Dershowitz hasn't spoken about it since 1998 (and even then, in an entirely different context). Instead, he attacked Baltimore's decision to indict the police in the Freddie Gray case in 2015. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

The Value of Confrontation as a Felony Sentencing Right. Shaakirrah Sanders from the University of Idaho advocates for extending the Confrontation Clause beyond the trial context to felony sentencing hearings.

The final Showcase panel examines Justice Scalia's transformation of five very important areas of Supreme Court doctrine. First, Justice Scalia transformed freedom of expression doctrine by entrenching a rule of viewpoint neutrality in place of different tests for different kinds of speech. In the five to four flag burning cases, Justice Scalia teamed up with Justices Brennan and Marshall to protect political speech. In the five to four decision in Citizens United he did the same thing with a different block of Justices. In another five to four opinion, Justice Scalia recognized constitutional protection for hate speech in RAV v. City of St. Paul. He joined a summary affirmance of a Seventh Circuit opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook banning Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography laws. Second, Justice Scalia revolutionized the law of the religion clauses by largely burying the Lemon test and leading the Supreme Court in affirming the constitutionality of education vouchers for religious schools. Third, Justice Scalia revolutionized the Second Amendment by finding that it protected an individual's right to bear arms to defend himself, and he was very libertarian and protective of criminal defendants' rights in his criminal procedure jurisprudence. Fourth, Justice Scalia surprised some observers with his criminal law and procedure opinions on searches, the Confrontation Clause, and more. Finally, Justice Scalia played what some describe as a unique role in standing, including in his opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court; Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President, The Federalist Society.

Confrontation as a Rule of Production. Pamela Metzger from Tulane argues that the Confrontation Clause should be interpreted as a rule requiring the production of witnesses in criminal trials.

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Woods v. Etherton without oral argument. -- Timothy Etherton was convicted in Michigan state court of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. His efforts to obtain post-conviction relief in state court--which related to his lawyer’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to the admission into evidence of the anonymous tip that led to his arrest--were rejected. A federal district court also rejected Etherton’s subsequent attempt to obtain federal habeas relief, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that judgment. Etherton’s appellate counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Sixth Circuit concluded, and no fairminded jurist could conclude otherwise. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in a per curiam opinion issued without oral argument. Without reaching the Sixth Circuit’s holding that counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixth Circuit had failed to apply the appropriate, deferential standard of review required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. With that in mind the Supreme Court explained, it would not be objectively unreasonable for a fair-minded judge to conclude that counsel’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to admission of the anonymous tip was due not to incompetence, but because the facts in the tip were uncontested and in any event consistent with Etherton’s defense. -- To discuss the case, we have Ronald Eisenberg, who is Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.

Jim Gordon is the new Batman. How can “Officer” Batman get a search warrant? How could Batman testify in court without revealing he is Jim Gordon? Judge Matthew Sciarrino joined us to discuss the right of a defendant to confront witnesses, how confidential informants are used for search warrants, and how undercover police officers testify in trial. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

On this episode of the podcast, we break down the Sixth Amendment and all of its individual clauses, including the debates surrounding issues like dying declaration, the Confrontation Clause, the Public Trial clause and the Impartial Jury clause and more. Feel free to email us your thoughts at politicaltheorypodcast@gmail.com, visit our website at politicaltheorypodcast.com, subscribe … More The Sixth Amendment: Trials

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Ohio v. Clark, which considered weather a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause?

Brett and Nazim open up the listener mailbag to answer questions posed by listeners and update previous cases that have since been decided.  The topics this week include Holt v. Hobbs, smart phone technology, why DUI checkpoints are acceptable under the 4th amendment, and the possible scope of the Confrontation Clause decision.  Due to the general breadth of this episode, we split it into two, so the remaining topics will be covered next week. Same Breyer time, same Breyer Channel.

This week's episode covers Ohio v. Clark, which asks whether or not a teacher may testify on behalf of a three year old child who was the only witness to a child abuse case under the Confrontation Clause.  This presents a good example of how the law can complicate an objective view of a bad situation, or how a sensitive topic can otherwise deny a citizen's Constitutional rights.  Either way, Brett and Nazim get real awkward debating the issue somewhere around the 35 minuute mark, so get ready for that.

With evidence and criminal procedure scholar Lisa Kern Griffin, we discuss the role of narrative, storytelling, and probability in assessing guilt and innocence. Also, feedback on coffee, citation, librarians, and argument. This show’s links: Lisa Kern Griffin’s faculty profile and writing Sonja West, First Amendment Neighbors, citing Joe Miller, Christian Turner, and Sonja West, Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison at 46:53, available at http://oralargument.org/1 Bunny’s coffee-roasting links: the Nesco Professional 800-watt Roaster, Green Coffee Buying Club, and information from Sweet Maria’s; Listener Zachary’s links: the Fresh Roast Plus 8 and White Mountain Coffee AP, Police Urge Google to Turn Fff ‘Stalking’ Feature on Mobile App for Drivers and Waze Video of Mike Tyson’s ten fastest knockouts Video of Lindsey Graham asking AG-nominee Loretta Lynch about the legal connection between gay marriage and polygamy Oral Argument 40: The Split Has Occurred, discussing Judge Sutton’s gay marriage opinion Oral Argument 44: Serial Oral Argument 45: Sacrifice Lisa Kern Griffin, Narrative, Truth, and Trial About the murder of Julie Jensen Jensen v. Schwochert (granting Jensen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Confrontation Clause grounds); see also the denial of the state’s motion to alter the habeas judgment (note that this case is before the Seventh Circuit, which has had argument but not yet ruled) Christian Turner, Bet Your Life Before You Impose Death Old Chief v. United States Mark Spottswood, Emotional Fact-finding Special Guest: Lisa Kern Griffin.

Here is the Podcast of the class.  Here is the Video of the class.  And here is the Powerpoint that accompanies the class.

Here is the Podcast of the class.  Here is the Video of the class.  And here is the Powerpoint that accompanies the class.

A case in which the Court held that a blood-alcohol test admitted without the actual testimony of the person who prepared the results violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause.