Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Child 's Attorney As Hearsay Conduit in Custody Litigation
Judicial genuflections to the rules of evidence are often encountered in published decisions. The evidentiary rules have been hailed as “the palladium of the judicial process” infringement upon which “destroys the vitality of that judicial process.” (Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 A.D.2d 84, 91, 739 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2d Dept. 2002).) Such panegyrics to the rules of evidence are quite warranted, given that their overarching purpose is nothing less than to ensure the reliability of the proof put before the trier of fact. Standing at the very core of evidentiary doctrine, of course, is the rightly vaunted rule against hearsay, positioned like a majestic monument to the wisdom of those common law judges who constructed the doctrine to ensure the right of cross-examination so many centuries ago. This prophylactic rule stands as an essential bulwark against the incursion of unreliable information into the fact-finding process.
Yet, sadly, in practice, fidelity to the rules of evidence, and particularly to the rule banning hearsay, is far less than it ought to be. This is especially prevalent in custody proceedings where material of untested validity all too frequently seeps into the record. Ironically, much of the hearsay that subverts the reliability of the proof comes in the form of the child's own out-of-court statements. Even more ironically, the conduit of this evidentiary contamination is often the child's own attorney. This article reviews a number of recent decisions that bear upon these recurrent hearsay issues.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.