Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1647004
 
 

Footnotes (25)



 


 



Davis and Hammon: Missed Cues Result in Unrealistic Dichotomy


Sarah M. Buel


Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

2007

Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 19, 2007

Abstract:     
On its face, the Supreme Court’s combined Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana ruling appears to be a just affirmation of criminal defendants’ right to cross-examine those bearing witness against them. However, Davis has made Confrontation Clause analysis more difficult by failing to mandate the contextual analysis necessary to ensure a proper balancing of constitutional and social norms - here as they pertain to domestic violence cases. First, Davis employs a faulty analytical framework that mistakenly applies remedies for state interference with confrontation to defendant prevention of a witness’s testimony. It makes little sense to eliminate the injustice alleged in Crawford and Davis, only to reward known criminals for brazen witness tampering and deny terrified victims a legal remedy. Second, the Court misguidedly imposes a temporal delineation that gives rise to an unrealistic dichotomy between evidence relating to ongoing emergencies and evidence of past conduct. Finally, in Hammon, the Supreme Court missed many obvious cues and ignored salient facts supporting the trial court’s determination that the abuse victim’s statements were not testimonial.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9

Keywords: Confrontation Clause, Davis v. Washington, Hammon v. Indiana

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 22, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Buel, Sarah M., Davis and Hammon: Missed Cues Result in Unrealistic Dichotomy (2007). Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 19, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1647004

Contact Information

Sarah M. Buel (Contact Author)
Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )
Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 364
Downloads: 35
Footnotes:  25

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.235 seconds