Thursday, September 20, 2007

A view of Crawford from a Massachusetts judge

A Massachusetts judge, Davd Lowy, and Katherine Bowles Dudich, who has served as a law clerk for his court, recently published an article titled After Crawford: Using the Confrontation Clause in Massachusetts Courts, 12 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 1 (2007). The article was brought to my attention by a recent law school graduate who worked on it and who suggested that I post a link to it, on the thought that it might be helpful to lawyers and judges, especially but not exclusively in Massachusetts. I am happy to do so, because I agree that the article may be useful -- but posting of course does not indicate endorsement, and there are in fact aspects of the piece with which I disagree.

2 comments:

justin eisele said...

There has been a recent reversal in Arkansas based on a Crawford violation.

I would like to see your comments on the dissenting opinion. I think that hits the head more so.

See Here:


State v. Seely


www.eiselelaw.com/blog

Anonymous said...

In State v. Seely, the court found that the declarant was incapable of testifying but also found her out of court statements as testimonial. The two views held together seem inconsistent. Anyone have any thoughts?