The Right to Voice?

25 Pages Posted: 14 Nov 2010 Last revised: 6 Dec 2010

Date Written: November 7, 2010

Abstract

Professor Christopher Slobogin in his recent and excellent book, Proving the Unprovable: The Role of Law, Science and Speculation in Adjudicating Culpability and Dangerousness, argued for the existence of a Right to Voice, whereby criminal defendants would have the right to “tell their stories” with any evidence they choose, unless “it is completely untrustworthy or so immune to the weapons of the adversarial process that its questionable nature is not likely to be exposed.” In this short Essay, I take issue with Professor Slobogin’s argument for the Right to Voice, as both a doctrinal and a normative matter. First, I argue that there is no support for the existence of a right to voice under the Supreme Court’s existing caselaw and that, in fact, the caselaw points away from such a right. Second, I argue that there is no good policy argument in favor of a generalized right to voice.

Keywords: Evidence, Criminal Law, Expert Evidence, Right to Present Evidence, Voice, Daubert

Suggested Citation

Lillquist, Erik, The Right to Voice? (November 7, 2010). Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 1621, 2010, Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 1708273, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1708273

Erik Lillquist (Contact Author)

Seton Hall Law School ( email )

One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5210
United States
973-642-8844 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
37
Abstract Views
759
PlumX Metrics