About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 1 (2009)

handle is hein.journals/bjcl14 and id is 1 raw text is: 27 Years of Truth-in-Evidence: The Expectations and Consequences of Proposition 8's Most Controversial Provision Diana Friedlandt INTRODUCTION Twenty-seven years ago, nearly three million California residents,1 disillusioned by what they perceived as an unrelenting crime rate and a state judiciary that often neglected the rights of crime victims, headed to the polls and cast their vote in support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment creating a victims' bill of rights.2 The initiative delineated a series of rights giving crime victims a stronger voice within the criminal justice system, and chief among them was the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which provided that with few exceptions, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.3 From the moment it was incorporated within Proposition 8, it engendered a mass of speculation. Proponents and opponents, and scholars and t Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA. J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley; B.A., University of Southern California. Many thanks to Professor David A. Sklansky, who inspired me to write this article and who provided invaluable guidance throughout its evolution. I would also like to thank Emily Garcia for her insight and encouragement. Finally, this article would not have been published without the love and support of my parents, Victor and Yelena Friedland, and my sister, Polina Friedland Bernstein. 1. Eleanor Swift, Does it Matter Who is in Charge of Evidence Law?, 25 LoY. L.A. L. REV. 649 n.2 (1992). 2. Lee Ashley Smith, The Admissibility of Tape Recordings In Criminal Trials Involving Domestic Disputes: California's Proposition 8 and Title III of the Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 15 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L.J. 217, 223 (2004). 3. The Truth-in-Evidence Act, embodied in Article I § 28(d), provides in full: Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code, Sections 352, 782, or 1103. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory or constitutional right of the press. CAL. CONST. art. I § 28(d) (1982).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most