Samuel Buffaloe


Outside of the Bruton context, this Note also examines the implications of defining "testimonial" statements entirely from the point of view of the speaker as the Eighth Circuit did in Dale. This Note will argue that to ignore the motives of the examiner encourages the police to use unethical and deceptive interrogation techniques. This Note additionally argues that applying Bruton only to testimonial statements ignores Bruton's Due Process concerns in that it allows juries to do what the Supreme Court considers to be an "impossible" task. Finally, this Note questions whether, after Crawford, any remaining constitutional limits remain on the admission of unreliable yet nontestimonial hearsay statements

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.