Add to ORKGThe contemporaneous objection rule is very clear and precise in its application. However, as the law stands in the Ninth Circuit, failure to contemporaneously object coupled with any mention of race by the sentencing judge is automatic grounds for resentencing. This article explores the origins of this exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. Next, it explores why these statements constitute harmless error on the part of the trial court. Finally, it explains why this “cowardly counsel” exception could have potentially devastating effects to the policies that underlie the contemporaneous objection rule
Appellate harmless error review, an early twentieth-century innovation prompted by concerns of effic...
Since the U.S. Supreme Court began limiting the exercise of peremptory challenges to safeguard pote...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...
What comes to mind when you think of evidence being presented at jury trials? Typically, both sides ...
On appeal, an essential question in reviewing a constitutional error in a criminal trial is whether ...
Researchers have proposed many explanations for the replicated finding that jurors often fail to dis...
The time has come to eliminate the contemporaneous objection requirement for depositions. From the o...
In White v. McGinnis, the Ninth Circuit held that a civil litigant\u27s knowing participation in a b...
Peremptory challenges have a long history, dating back to 1305 in England. In Swain v. Alabama, Just...
Critical Error: Courts’ Refusal To Recognize Intentional Race Discrimination Findings as Constitutio...
Rules of civil procedure have been examined extensively for their intended and unintended effects on...
On March I, 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Florida v. Nixon to resolve whether Strick...
The word “corruptly” presents significant interpretation problems to courts construing the word in s...
Some one hundred and six years before the United States Supreme Court\u27s 1986 decision in Batson v...
Stand Your Ground laws give jurors too much leeway in determining what constitutes a reasonable thre...
Appellate harmless error review, an early twentieth-century innovation prompted by concerns of effic...
Since the U.S. Supreme Court began limiting the exercise of peremptory challenges to safeguard pote...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...
What comes to mind when you think of evidence being presented at jury trials? Typically, both sides ...
On appeal, an essential question in reviewing a constitutional error in a criminal trial is whether ...
Researchers have proposed many explanations for the replicated finding that jurors often fail to dis...
The time has come to eliminate the contemporaneous objection requirement for depositions. From the o...
In White v. McGinnis, the Ninth Circuit held that a civil litigant\u27s knowing participation in a b...
Peremptory challenges have a long history, dating back to 1305 in England. In Swain v. Alabama, Just...
Critical Error: Courts’ Refusal To Recognize Intentional Race Discrimination Findings as Constitutio...
Rules of civil procedure have been examined extensively for their intended and unintended effects on...
On March I, 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Florida v. Nixon to resolve whether Strick...
The word “corruptly” presents significant interpretation problems to courts construing the word in s...
Some one hundred and six years before the United States Supreme Court\u27s 1986 decision in Batson v...
Stand Your Ground laws give jurors too much leeway in determining what constitutes a reasonable thre...
Appellate harmless error review, an early twentieth-century innovation prompted by concerns of effic...
Since the U.S. Supreme Court began limiting the exercise of peremptory challenges to safeguard pote...
Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forf...