CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Coleman & Rothstein on Surrogate Witnesses and the Confrontation Clause

Ronald J. Coleman and Paul F. Rothstein (Georgetown University Law Center and Georgetown University Law Center) have posted Williams v. Illinois and the Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony by a Surrogate Witness Violate the Confrontation Clause? on SSRN. Here is the 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, 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

| Permalink


Post a comment