In this month’s column we address cases in which the Court of Appeals found that there is no duty to remove lead paint from premises in which children only stay part-time, in which the court examined the requirements for establishing an evidentiary foundation for the introduction of DNA evidence, and in which the court found that parents or guardians may surreptitiously record interactions between their child and others if the child is deemed to have consented vicariously.
DNA Evidence
In People v. John, a narrow majority of the Court of Appeals ruled that the People must sponsor DNA evidence with a witness who testifies with personal knowledge of the relevant testing and analysis in order to satisfy a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him or her.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
