Williams v. Illinois and the Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony by a Surrogate Witness Violate the Confrontation Clause?

Abstract:     
This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party.

The debate, originally published on Public Square.net, includes the following parts:

• Part 1: Ronald J. Coleman: Dexter’s Dilemma: Rule 703 Does Not Violate the Confrontation Clause


• Part 2: Paul Rothstein: Surrogate Witnesses Just Won’t Cut It: A Response to Ronald Coleman


• Part 3: Ronald J. Coleman: More on Williams v. Illinois: A Response to Paul Rothstein


• Part 4: Paul Rothstein: Williams v. Illinois: Responses to Coleman’s Arguments
  

Number of Pages in PDF File: 20

Keywords: Confrontation Clause, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Supreme Court

JEL Classification: K14, K40

Accepted Paper Series