Confronting Science: Expert Evidence and the Confrontation Clause

Autor:	David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Rok vydání:	2013
Předmět:	Officer Warrant Plaintiff Statement (logic) Political science Confrontation Clause Law Hearsay Exclusionary rule Scientific evidence
Zdroj:	The Supreme Court Review. 2012:99-159
ISSN:	2158-2459 0081-9557
Popis:	ion may be puzzled at the missing chapters.”). 93 1 McCormick § 190 (cited in note 92). 94 In some situations, evidence that completes the story is not hearsay. This occurs when an out-of-court statement truly is introduced solely for its effect on the hearer. A police officer sued for an illegal arrest can defend by showing that the arrest came after learning from an apparently reliable source that a warrant for the plaintiff’s arrest was outstanding—even though the warrant had been quashed. Compare Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 (1995) (declining to apply the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally seized evidence in this situation). The probative value of the report of the outstanding warrant does not depend on its truth. True or false, the report establishes a good faith basis for the arrest. 95 471 US 409 (1985). 96 Crawford, 541 US 36, 59–60 n 9 (2004). 97 Williams, 132 S Ct at 2256–57 (Thomas concurring) (citations omitted). 98 261 P3d 984 (Mont 2011).
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::37ad38c71fc0d1c6a86113f3ee874f12 https://doi.org/10.1086/670021 Zobrazit plný text záznamu