Evidence law - hearsay rule - California adopts hearsay exception making written statements by unavailable witnesses that describe past physical abuse admissible in civil and criminal cases. - Act of Sept. 3, 1996, ch. 416 (to be codified at CAL. EVID. CODE s. 1370)
Article Abstract:
A new hearsay exception enacted in California in 1996 providing for the admissibility of hearsay statements by an unavailable witness regarding domestic abuse would appear to violate the Confrontation Clause. The statute fails to provide the courts with adequate guidance to find that indicia of reliability are present to ensure the trustworthiness of the statements. The California legislature should act to ensure that the justice system can curb domestic violence, but expanding the hearsay exception poses too many risks to procedural safeguards.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
An argument for confrontation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Article Abstract:
The right of confrontation should be extended to sentencing hearings under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines limited judicial discretion in determining sentences without reforming the informal methods of factfinding used in sentencing hearings. The guidelines have made the sentencing procedure more adversarial, increasing the need for procedural safeguards under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. To promote fairness in sentencing, defendants should be allowed to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Criminal law - Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Third Circuit holds that volitional impairments can support a claim of diminished mental capacity
Article Abstract:
The US 3d Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997's United States v. McBroom held that sentences of volitionally impaired criminal defendants may be shortened by applying reduced mental capacity section 5K2.13 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Persons with volitional impairments have psychological disorders but do not fall into the legally insane category. The court disregarded other federal circuit courts' exclusive reliance on cognitive capabilities to allow some judicial discretion in the most extreme of such cases.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Welfare reform - punishment of drug offenders - Congress denies cash assistance and food stamps to drug felons. - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, s. 115, 110 Stat. 2105 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. s. 862a)
- Abstracts: Criminal prosecution and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: an analysis of the Constitution and criminal intent in an environmental context
- Abstracts: Voting Rights Act. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VII - affirmative action - Third Circuit holds that diversity is not, in itself, a sufficient justification for granting preferences to minorities. - Taxman v. Board of Education
- Abstracts: The "new value exception" in single-asset reorganizations: a commentary on the Bjolmes auction procedure and its relationship to Chapter 11
- Abstracts: Limits on habeas writ aren't a 'novel idea.' (response to National Law Journal editorial of Feb 8, 1993) (Letter to the Editor)