将对抗视为一种审判权利

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2013-10-04 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2335917
Shaakirrah R. Sanders
{"title":"将对抗视为一种审判权利","authors":"Shaakirrah R. Sanders","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2335917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this work, I challenge the oft-cited, but unsupported rule that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause only applies at the trial stage of the “criminal prosecution.” I examine the most likely interpretation of the term “criminal prosecution” at the time of the Founding and conclude the term would have included felony sentencing. I explore the Counsel Clause’s early rejection of the “trial-right-only” rule. I also discuss the erosion of the “trial-right-only” rule with regards to the Jury Trial Clause as recently demonstrated in the 2013 term in Alleyne v. United States. I advocate eliminating the trial-right-only theory of the Confrontation Clause to allow cross-examination of testimonial statements that are material to punishment and where cross-examination assists in assessing truth and veracity. In such cases, I advocate a practical application of the fundamental right to confront witnesses during felony sentencing. This work advances the discussion on this issue by proposing uniform application of the Sixth Amendment’s structurally identical Counsel, Jury Trial, and Confrontation Clauses at felony sentencing.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"2619 1","pages":"1257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2335917","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unbranding Confrontation as Only a Trial Right\",\"authors\":\"Shaakirrah R. Sanders\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2335917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this work, I challenge the oft-cited, but unsupported rule that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause only applies at the trial stage of the “criminal prosecution.” I examine the most likely interpretation of the term “criminal prosecution” at the time of the Founding and conclude the term would have included felony sentencing. I explore the Counsel Clause’s early rejection of the “trial-right-only” rule. I also discuss the erosion of the “trial-right-only” rule with regards to the Jury Trial Clause as recently demonstrated in the 2013 term in Alleyne v. United States. I advocate eliminating the trial-right-only theory of the Confrontation Clause to allow cross-examination of testimonial statements that are material to punishment and where cross-examination assists in assessing truth and veracity. In such cases, I advocate a practical application of the fundamental right to confront witnesses during felony sentencing. This work advances the discussion on this issue by proposing uniform application of the Sixth Amendment’s structurally identical Counsel, Jury Trial, and Confrontation Clauses at felony sentencing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"2619 1\",\"pages\":\"1257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2335917\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2335917\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2335917","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这项工作中,我挑战了经常被引用但不受支持的规则,即第六修正案的对抗条款仅适用于“刑事起诉”的审判阶段。我研究了建国时对“刑事起诉”一词最可能的解释,并得出结论,该术语包括重罪判决。我探讨了律师条款早期对“只有审判权”规则的拒绝。我还讨论了关于陪审团审判条款的“只有审判权”规则的侵蚀,最近在2013年的Alleyne诉美国案中证明了这一点。我主张取消“对抗条款”中只有审判权利的理论,允许对对惩罚有重要意义的证词进行交叉询问,并在交叉询问有助于评估真相和真实性的情况下进行交叉询问。在这种情况下,我主张在重罪判决过程中实际运用与证人对质的基本权利。这项工作通过提出在重罪判决中统一适用第六修正案中结构相同的律师、陪审团审判和对峙条款,推动了对这一问题的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unbranding Confrontation as Only a Trial Right
In this work, I challenge the oft-cited, but unsupported rule that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause only applies at the trial stage of the “criminal prosecution.” I examine the most likely interpretation of the term “criminal prosecution” at the time of the Founding and conclude the term would have included felony sentencing. I explore the Counsel Clause’s early rejection of the “trial-right-only” rule. I also discuss the erosion of the “trial-right-only” rule with regards to the Jury Trial Clause as recently demonstrated in the 2013 term in Alleyne v. United States. I advocate eliminating the trial-right-only theory of the Confrontation Clause to allow cross-examination of testimonial statements that are material to punishment and where cross-examination assists in assessing truth and veracity. In such cases, I advocate a practical application of the fundamental right to confront witnesses during felony sentencing. This work advances the discussion on this issue by proposing uniform application of the Sixth Amendment’s structurally identical Counsel, Jury Trial, and Confrontation Clauses at felony sentencing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1