Constitutional law and the law of evidence

Cornell Law Review

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 57-122

  Garrett, Brandon L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929108721     PISSN: 00108847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Mitchell N. Berman, Constitutional Decision Rules, 90 VA. L. REV. 1, 3-4 (2004).
2. Lawrence Gene Sager, Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced Constitutional Norms, 91 HARV. L. REV. 1212, 1212 (1978).
3. Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Pretrial Importance and Adaptation of the "Trial" Evidence Rules, 25 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 965, 965 (1992).
4. John H. Langbein, Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence: A View from the Ryder Sources, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 1168, 1201-02 (1996).
5. Frederick Schauer, On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 165, 166 n.5 (2006).
6. Thomas W. Merrill, The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1, 4-6 (1985)
7. Henry P. Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term-Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 HARV. L. REV. 1, 3 (1975).
8. Michael Abramowicz, Constitutional Circularity, 49 UCLA L. REV. 1, 43 (2001)
9. Paul G. Cassell, The Costs of the Miranda Mandate: A Lesson in the Dangers of Inflexible "Prophylactic" Supreme Court Inventions, 28 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 299, 300 (1996)
10. David A. Strauss, The Ubiquity of Prophylactic Rules, 55 U. CHI. L. REV. 190, 195 (1988).
11. Dickerson v. United States put to rest that possible interpretation of Miranda. 530 U.S. 428, 432 (2000).
12. Doni Gewirtzman, Lower Court Constitutionalism: Circuit Court Discretion in a Complex Adaptive System, 61 AM. U. L. REV. 457, 481-89 (2012).
13. Samuel R. Gross, Law in the Backwaters: A Comment on Mirjan Dama?ska's Evidence Law Adrift, 49 HASTINGS L.J. 369, 370 (1998).
14. David Alan Sklansky, Evidentiary Instructions and the Jury as Other, 65 STAN. L. REV. 407, 447-48 (2013).
15. Jerome C. Latimer, Confrontation After Crawford: The Decision's Impact on How Hearsay Is Analyzed Under the Confrontation Clause, 36 SETON HALL L. REV. 327, 329-30 (2006).
16. Thomas J. Reed, Crawford v. Washington and the Irretrievable Breakdown of a Union: Separating the Confrontation Clause from the Hearsay Rule, 56 S.C. L. REV. 185, 201 (2004).
17. JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, A TREATISE ON THE ANGLOAMERICAN SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW § 1397, at 101 (2d ed. 1923).
18. David Alan Sklansky, Confrontation and Kabuki, 20 J.L. & POL'Y 501, 515 (2012).
19. Anthony J. Franze & Sheila B. Scheuerman, Instructing Juries on Punitive Damages: Due Process Revisited After State Farm, 6 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 423, 507-08 (2004)
20. Neil Vidmar & Matthew W. Wolfe, Fairness Through Guidance: Jury Instruction on Punitive Damages After Philip Morris v. Williams, 2 CHARLESTON L. REV. 307, 308 (2008).
21. Henry P. Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 HARV. L. REV. 1, 20-23 (1975).
22. Donald Dripps, Living with Leon, 95 YALE L.J. 906, 907 (1986).
23. Steven Duke, Making Leon Worse, 95 YALE L.J. 1405, 1422-23 (1986).
24. Wayne R. LaFave, "The Seductive Call of Expediency": United States v. Leon, Its Rationale and Ramifications, 1984 U. ILL. L. REV. 895, 908 (1984).
25. Sean R. O'Brien, Note, United States v. Leon and the Freezing of the Fourth Amendment, 68 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1305, 1307 (1993).
26. Jeffrey L. Fisher, Reclaiming Criminal Procedure, 38 GEO L.J. ANN. REV. CRIM. PROC. xv (2009)
27. Wayne R. LaFave, Recent Development: The Smell of Herring: A Critique of the Supreme Court's Latest Assault on the Exclusionary Rule, 99 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 757, 758 (2009).
28. David Jaros, The Lessons of People v. Moscat: Confronting Judicial Bias in Domestic Violence Cases Interpreting Crawford v. Washington, 42 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 995, 1000-08 (2005).
29. Jennifer Mnookin & David Kaye, Confronting Science: Expert Evidence and the Confrontation Clause, 2012 SUP. CT. REV. 99, 101 (2012)
30. Josephine Ross, After Crawford Double-Speak: Testimony" Does Not Mean Testimony and "Witness" Does Not Mean Witness, 97 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 147, 148 (2006).
31. Brandon L. Garrett, Eyewitnesses and Exclusion, 65 VAND. L. REV. 451, 453 (2012)
32. Gary L. Wells & Amy L. Bradfield, "Good, You Identified the Suspect": Feedback to Eyewitnesses Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience, 83 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 360, 361 (1998)
33. Gary L. Wells & Deah S. Quinlivan, Suggestive Eyewitness Identification Procedures and the Supreme Court's Reliability Test in Light of Eyewitness Science: 30 Years Later, 33 L. & HUM. BEHAV. 1, 9-14 (2009).
34. Brandon L. Garrett, Confession Contamination Revisited, 101 VA. L. REV. 395, 410 (2015)
35. Brandon L. Garrett, The Substance of False Confessions, 62 STAN. L. REV. 1051, 1110-12 (2010)
36. Richard A. Leo, Peter J. Neufeld, Steven A. Drizin & Andrew E. Taslitz, Promoting Accuracy in the Use of Confession Evidence: An Argument for Pretrial Reliability Assessments to Prevent Wrongful Convictions, 85 TEMP. L. REV. 759, 778-79 (2013).
37. Barry Friedman, The Wages of Stealth Overruling (with Particular Attention to Miranda v. Arizona), 99 GEO. L.J. 1, 24 (2010) ("Miranda has effectively been overruled.")
38. Yale Kamisar, The Rise, Decline, and Fall of Miranda, 87 WASH. L. REV. 965, 984 (2012) (noting the "piece-by-piece 'overruling' of Miranda")
39. Charles D. Weisselberg, Mourning Miranda, 96 CAL. L. REV. 1519, 1521 (2008) ("Miranda is largely dead.").
40. Rupert Cross, What Should Be Done About the Rule Against Hearsay?, 1965 CRIM. L. REV. 68, 80-84.
41. Edmund M. Morgan, Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept, 62 HARV. L. REV. 177, 218 (1948).
42. Michael Leippe, The Case for Expert Testimony About Eyewitness Memory, 1 PSCHYOL. PUB. POL'Y & L. 909, 923 (1995).
43. EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED, THE NEW WIGMORE: A TREATISE ON EVIDENCE § 2.1.3 (2014).
44. Michael W. Mullane, The Truthsayer and the Court: Expert Testimony on Credibility, 43 ME. L. REV. 53, 64 (1991).
45. Eileen A. Scallen, Constitutional Dimensions of Hearsay Reform: Toward a Three-Dimensional Confrontation Clause, 76 MINN. L. REV. 623, 626 (1992)
46. Andrew E. Taslitz, Catharsis, the Confrontation Clause, and Expert Testimony, 22 CAP. U. L. REV. 103, 130 (1993).
47. Andrew E. Taslitz, Myself Alone: Individualizing Justice Through Psychological Character Evidence, 52 MD. L. REV. 1, 59-63, 89-90, 92, 115-19 (1993).
48. T.P. Gallanis, The Rise of Modern Evidence Law, 84 IOWA L. REV. 499, 500 (1999).
49. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17-19 (1967)
50. Welsh S. White, Evidentiary Privileges and the Defendant's Constitutional Right to Introduce Evidence, 80 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 377 (1989).
51. Ryan J. Owens & David A. Simon, Explaining the Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket, 53 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1219, 1252 (2012)
52. Kenneth W. Starr, The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft, 90 MINN. L. REV. 1363, 1366 (2006).
53. John M.M. Greabe, Mirabile Dictum!: The Case for "Unnecessary" Constitutional Rulings in Civil Rights Damages Actions, 74 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 403, 407-08 (1999)
54. John C. Jeffries, Jr., Reversing the Order of Battle in Constitutional Torts, 2009 SUP. CT. REV. 115, 116-17 (2009)
55. Sam Kamin, Harmless Error and the Rights/Remedies Split, 88 VA. L. REV. 1, 49 (2002).
56. Frederick Schauer, Ashwander Revisited, 1995 SUP. CT. REV. 71, 90-97 (1995).
57. David L. Shapiro, Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 921, 944 (1992)
58. Amanda L. Tyler, Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons, 99 NW. U. L. REV. 1389, 1422 (2005).
59. Ernest A. Young, Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms, and the Preservation of Judicial Review, 78 TEX. L. REV. 1549, 1586-87 (2000).
60. Justin Driver, Constitutional Outliers, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 929, 930-48 (2014).
61. Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Following Lower-Court Precedent, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 851, 860-91 (2014).
62. Kevin M. Clermont and Stephen C. Yeazell, Inventing Tests, Destabilizing Systems, 95 IOWA L. REV. 821, 850-52 (2010).
63. Evan H. Caminker, Precedent and Prediction: The Forward-Looking Aspects of Inferior Court Decisionmaking, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1, 58 (1994).
64. Jonathan Remy Nash, Resuscitating Deference to Lower Federal Court Judges' Interpretations of State Law, 77 S. CAL. L. REV. 975, 1022-26 (2004).
65. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Constitutional Constraints, 97 CAL. L. REV. 975, 1013 (2009).
66. Thomas Y. Davies, What did the Framers Know, and When did They Know it? Fictional Originalism in Crawford v. Washington, 71 BROOK. L. REV. 105, 120-89 (2005).
67. Roger W. Kirst, Does Crawford Provide a Stable Foundation for Confrontation Doctrine?, 71 BROOK. L. REV. 35, 77-87 (2005).
68. Richard D. Friedman, The Mold that Shapes Hearsay Law, 66 FLA. L. REV. 433, 434 (2014).