'Missing Witness' Rule Revisited

, New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School, analyzes the Court of Appeals' decisions in 'Devito v. Feliciano,' which decided an issue involving the noncumulative testimony precondition for the missing witness charge, and 'People v. Thomas,' which addressed that precondition in the context of defense counsel's missing witness argument in summation which was made in the absence of a missing witness charge.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as 'Missing Witness' Rule Revisited in Aftermath of 'Devito' and 'Thomas'

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202649437544

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.