This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party.
The debate includes the following parts:
- Part 1: Ronald J. Coleman:Dexter’s Dilemma: Rule 703 Does Not Violate the Confrontation Clause
- Part 2: Paul Rothstein: Surrogate Witnesses Just Won’t Cut It: A Response to Ronald Coleman
- Part 3: Ronald J. Coleman: More on Williams v. Illinois: A Response to Paul Rothstein
- Part 4: Paul Rothstein: Williams v. Illinois: Responses to Coleman’s Arguments
Ronald J. Coleman & Paul Rothstein, Williams v. Illinois and the Confrontation Clause, PublicSquare.net (Dec. 6, 2011), http://publicsquare.net/williams-v-illinois-and-the-confrontation-clause-part-1
Scholarly Commons Citation
Rothstein, Paul F. and Coleman, Ronald J., "Williams v. Illinois and the Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony by a Surrogate Witness Violate the Confrontation Clause?" (2011). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 740.