FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W228831023> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W228831023 startingPage "115" @default.
• W228831023 abstract "The stars are aligned today for the overruling of Crawford v. Washington. (1) Although Justice Scalia's opinion in that Confrontation Clause case omitted analysis of most of the recognized factors justifying its sharp departure from stare decisis, (2) by now those factors have developed in a way that justifies departure from Crawford itself. (3) For example, even commentators who support the apparent goal of that decision, namely, broad exclusion of evidence on Confrontation Clause grounds, describe Crawford and its progeny as unstable. (4) The underpinnings of the decision are dubious and, in some instances, provably wrong.5 Crawford has led a series of decisions by closely divided Courts (6) that have left important issues heavily discussed but unresolved. (7) To reach decisions that make sense after Crawford, the Justices have resorted transparent judicial fudging. (8) In summary, the Crawford approach is neither faithful the Constitution nor workable. And by now, remarkably, a majority of the Court is united in rejecting that approach (9) and preferring differing alternatives that easily could be reconciled and that would produce results more congruent with the purposes of the Confrontation Clause. (10) The regime that preceded Crawford did not feature the kind of indeterminacy that has followed that decision. The principal earlier decision, Ohio v. Roberts, (11) was imperfect, be sure, but contrary statements in Crawford, its rationale was traceable the history of the Confrontation Clause. (12) Decisions made under its approach did not require judicial legerdemain come reasonable conclusions. (13) Furthermore, Crawford ignores the justifications recognized by the Court for departure from stare decisis, in this instance by its jettisoning of Roberts, (14) and overruling Crawford would replace that decision with satisfactory doctrine even if the Court failed update Roberts. (15) Articles discussing Crawford are numerous, as might be expected. They are generally uncomplimentary, (16) featuring descriptions ranging from unstable (17) unspeakable. (18) Few of them, however, discuss whether Crawford should be overruled, (19) and none analyzes this question in light of the Court's doctrine that governs departures from stare decisis. That is the ultimate purpose of this Article. The reason for this void in the scholarship may be the recent rendition of Supreme Court decisions that most persuasively demonstrate the need for rejecting Crawford. (20) In other words, although Crawford itself has been around for some time and has been the subject of several analyses, it is only recently that this Article can be written in convincing terms, and its subject is new. The Article begins with descriptions of Roberts and Crawford, the two opposing decisions considering the Confrontation Clause. It then analyzes the manner in which the Crawford Court overruled Roberts and compares the Court's reasoning criteria it has developed for departures from stare decisis. Next, the Article considers defects in the Crawford decision, with particular attention errors in its rationale, later decisions attempting follow it, issues that have remained unresolved, and the practical effects that have resulted. The sixth section of the Article discusses Williams v. Illinois, in which a coalition formed reject the Crawford rationale--and in which the Court arguably has overruled that decision by implication. A final section sets out the author's conclusions, which include the propositions that the overruling of Roberts was not justified by the reasoning in Crawford, but that the overruling of Crawford is amply justified by criteria expressed in the Court's stare decisis decisions. I. THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, OHIO V. ROBERTS, AND CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON The Sixth Amendment the Constitution provides that in criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. …" @default.
• W228831023 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W228831023 creator A5007690697 @default.
• W228831023 date "2012-11-01" @default.
• W228831023 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W228831023 title "Overruling Crawford v. Washington: Why and How" @default.
• W228831023 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W228831023 type Work @default.
• W228831023 sameAs 228831023 @default.
• W228831023 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W228831023 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W228831023 hasAuthorship W228831023A5007690697 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C144559511 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2777366796 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2778102385 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C2780310539 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W228831023 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C111472728 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C111919701 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C138885662 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C139621336 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C144024400 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C144559511 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C17744445 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C199539241 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2776154427 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2777366796 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2778102385 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2778272461 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2779160553 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C2780310539 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C41008148 @default.
• W228831023 hasConceptScore W228831023C41895202 @default.
• W228831023 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W228831023 hasLocation W2288310231 @default.
• W228831023 hasOpenAccess W228831023 @default.
• W228831023 hasPrimaryLocation W2288310231 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W1488589002 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W1533610409 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W1579335966 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W2289363512 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W2338896905 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W24324246 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W253492520 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W2789804462 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W2971747884 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3023394889 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3121242877 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3121492764 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3121759309 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3122770430 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3125319606 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W327481467 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W331381357 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W356272352 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W78706981 @default.
• W228831023 hasRelatedWork W3123445936 @default.
• W228831023 hasVolume "88" @default.
• W228831023 isParatext "false" @default.
• W228831023 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W228831023 magId "228831023" @default.
• W228831023 workType "article" @default.