Copyright (c) 2008 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/timothy_moore Recent documents in Timothy M Moore en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:54:13 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/timothy_moore/30 http://works.bepress.com/timothy_moore/30 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:32:10 PDT Forfeiture by wrongdoing is the legal principle that extinguishes the right to Confrontation, and sometimes hearsay objections, when a party seeking to admit hearsay can prove that the party objecting to the hearsay made the hearsay declarant unavailable though wrongdoing. Forfeiture by wrongdoing was developed as a means by which courts could protect the integrity of their proceedings from witness tampering. Forfeiture by wrongdoing has been recognized in English jurisprudence since the middle of the seventeenth century and by the United States Supreme Court since 1878. The principle was revivified in Crawford when Justice Scalia, in addition to substantially altering our understanding of the import of the Confrontation Clause, wrote that forfeiture by wrongdoing equitably extinguished the right to Confrontation. The federal courts have been using forfeiture by wrongdoings extensively since the 1970s in organized crime prosecutions, and the rule was recognized even by a number of states before 2004. Currently, forfeiture by wrongdoing is recognized by a majority of jurisdictions and no jurisdiction has refused to recognize its legitimacy.This paper surveys the current state of the law on forfeiture by wrongdoing. This paper identifies majority and majority trends regarding different applications of forfeiture by wrongdoing. After surveying the contemporary state of the law, this paper advances two arguments regarding Florida. First, this paper argues that there is already a substantial basis for concluding that forfeiture by wrongdoing is part of Florida's common law. Second, this paper argues that in order to make forfeiture by wrongdoing effective Florida must amend its evidence code. Timothy M. Moore Criminal Law and Procedure Constitutional Law Jurisprudence Evidence http://works.bepress.com/timothy_moore/10 http://works.bepress.com/timothy_moore/10 Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:26:53 PST Forfeiture by wrongdoing is the legal principle that extinguishes the right to Confrontation, and sometimes hearsay objections, when a party seeking to admit hearsay can prove that the party objecting to the hearsay made the hearsay declarant unavailable though wrongdoing. Forfeiture by wrongdoing was developed as a means by which courts could protect the integrity of their proceedings from witness tampering. Forfeiture by wrongdoing has been recognized in English jurisprudence since the middle of the seventeenth century and by the United States Supreme Court since 1878. The principle was revivified in Crawford when Justice Scalia, in addition to substantially altering our understanding of the import of the Confrontation Clause, wrote that forfeiture by wrongdoing equitably extinguished the right to Confrontation. The federal courts have been using forfeiture by wrongdoings extensively since the 1970s in organized crime prosecutions, and the rule was recognized even by a number of states before 2004. Currently, forfeiture by wrongdoing is recognized by a majority of jurisdictions and no jurisdiction has refused to recognize its legitimacy.This paper surveys the current state of the law on forfeiture by wrongdoing. This paper identifies majority and majority trends regarding different applications of forfeiture by wrongdoing. After surveying the contemporary state of the law, this paper advances two arguments regarding Florida. First, this paper argues that there is already a substantial basis for concluding that forfeiture by wrongdoing is part of Florida's common law. Second, this paper argues that in order to make forfeiture by wrongdoing effective Florida must amend its evidence code. Timothy M. Moore Criminal Law and Procedure Constitutional Law Jurisprudence Evidence