Post a New Question

Criminal Courts

posted by on .

What is it meant when it says theory that law is a living body? Is this because like living organisms the law is always growing and changing?

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    yes

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    Okay that is what I thought but now they are asking me to apply this arguement to the case of Crawford v. Washington, and I do not really so any connection. Are you familiar with this case? And if so could you please give me an example of how this are similar?

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington (from http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS379US379&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Crawford+v.+Washington ), it seems that what they refer to as the hearsay rules were changed. Please read through this webpage and others in the search results to be absolutely sure.

    Law is like language ... always having to shift and change because humans are always shifting and changing. Our situations change (e.g., the presence of "smart phones" in our lives, thus the law having to catch up to reality), and laws change in their wake.

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    I guess what I need to know is, with regards to the 6th Amendment (the ability to confront the witness), what does this have to do with the Crawford case?

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington#Trial_proceeding
    Read the Trial proceeding section very carefully -- all of it.

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    Ok I have read the entire case and the wiki link you sent me, and I am still not understanding. This is what the question in my assignment reads as: Use the Crawford opinion as an example ofhow the US Supreme court believes the 6th Amendment has evolved throughout history. I am very greatful for the help so far but I have to write a 1500 word essay and this is the one aspect I am stuck on.

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    "Defense counsel objected to the admission of the wife's statement, on the ground that Mr. Crawford would be unable to confront (i.e. cross-examine) Mrs. Crawford on her statement without waiving spousal privilege, and that this would be a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington#Trial_proceeding

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    To write a paper that long, you may have to go back into earlier court cases that have aspects relating to the developing interpretations of the hearsay rules:
    http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS379US379&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=evolution+of+hearsay+rules+and+sixth+amendment

  • Criminal Courts - ,

    I finished up this assignment last night and my instructor already graded it and I got 100% on it and just wanted to say thank you so much for all your help!!

Answer This Question

First Name:
School Subject:
Answer:

Related Questions

More Related Questions

Post a New Question