Confrontation Control
Date
2012
Authors
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)