Confrontation Control

Date

2012

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Texas Tech Law Review

Abstract

Explains how the artificial fundamental rights doctrine has ceded confrontation control to counsel. Then, considers and critique the jurisprudence addressing defendant claims about confrontation rights that were waived or forfeited by defense counsel. Along the way, offers some observations about the implications of ceding confrontation control to counsel. Concludes by arguing that the right to confrontation best serves its purposes when defendants control the exercise of the right.

Description

Keywords

Considering confrontation, Confrontation: purpose and practice, Confrontation as a non-fundamental right, Analyzing confrontation deprivations, Strickland analysis, Strickland-hybrid analysis, Critiquing the Control Confrontation Rule

Citation

Pamela R. Metzger, Confrontation Control, 45 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 83 (2012-2013)