Jan 10 Feedback

From CyberOne Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

kstalter says:

Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (1997). I came across this case in my clinical last semester. It's actually relevant in many ways to what we're talking about. It was written by Professor Fried when he was on the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. It involves a child abuse case and includes a discussion of the etymology of the Confrontation Clause:

"[A]s Justice Harlan put it, '[s]imply as a matter of English' it confers at least 'a right to meet face to face all those who appear and give evidence at trial.' California v. Green, [399 U.S. 149, 175, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1943-1944, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) ]. Simply as a matter of Latin as well, since the word 'confront' ultimately derives from the prefix 'con-' (from 'contra' meaning 'against' or 'opposed') and the noun 'frons' (forehead). Shakespeare was thus describing the root meaning of confrontation when he had Richard the Second say: 'Then call them to our presence--face to face, and frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear the accuser and the accused freely speak....' Richard II, Act 1, sc. 1...." Amirault at 630.


The 9th Circuit's review of the Swan case -- which quotes Professor Nesson -- can be found at: 6 F.3d 1373. The state supreme court's review is at 114 Wn.2d 613. JP 10:40, 10 January 2007 (EST)