Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 95, December 2009, Issue 8
Making Good on Good Intentions
by Katharine T. Bartlett
The State of State Anti-takeover Law
by Michal Barzuza
Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny
by James Nelson
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
by Andrew Stockment
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia
Essay by Stephen Wills Murphy and Darryl K. Brown

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
Response by Robert F. Turner

Tiered Originality and the Dualism of Copyright Incentives
Response by Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
Response by David E. Graham

[More]
Announcements
December Issue

January Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review announces the results of its September Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact a staff member

The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia  Essay
January 23, 2010

IN October Term 2008, the Supreme Court handed down Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts—the latest case in the Crawford line under the Confrontation Clause. In Melendez-Diaz, the prosecution sought to introduce an affidavit by a forensic analyst that stated a given substance was cocaine. The defendant objected, arguing that the Confrontation Clause required that the analyst testify in person. Justice Scalia, writing for a five-Justice majority that included Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas, held that the reports of forensic analysts are "testimonial," and thus a prosecutor can only introduce such a report if the analyst is subject to "confrontation," or if the defendant waives that right.

[More]

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response | Response
By David E. Graham

AS a graduate student attending George Washington University in the late sixties, I attended a debate between John Norton Moore and Richard Falk concerning both the wisdom and validity of the ongoing war in Vietnam. As John Moore rose to respond to Professor Falk’s critique of the Vietnam conflict, he uttered this very memorable line: "Dick, I disagree with but two of your points—your premise and your conclusion." After all of these years, I can offer this same assessment regarding Ganesh Sitaraman’s article stating his perceived need for revision of the existing Law of War (LOW) in order for the United States to successfully implement a modern counterinsurgency strategy.

[More]

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases | Response
By Robert F. Turner

I have been running the University of Virginia National Security Law Institute each June since 1991 to train professors and government lawyers to teach and work in this emerging field of law. Professor Robert Chesney attended the 2004 Institute and has been a regular instructor in the program since then. I have encountered no young national security law scholar who in my view rivals his considerable talents. I was thus not surprised to find that he has contributed a very thoughtful and insightful article to the Virginia Law Review.

[More]