We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 4 provides original data on the way sexual assault was adjudicated across the country in the wake of the Dear Colleague Letter. The chapter presents data gathered from eighty-five of the top colleges and universities over a twenty-seven-month period, from October 2014 to January 2017. It asks about rights deemed fundamental in a criminal trial including: the right to a live hearing, the right to question the opposing party, the right to appeal, and the right to remain silent.
Chapter 5 evaluates the fairness of DCL-influenced proceedings under two theories: violation of procedural due process and breach of contract for failure to comport with basic procedural fairness. The first, which is grounded in the U.S. Constitution, provides a stronger basis for recovery. However, it requires state action, which means it is probably only available to public school students. The chapter argues that under either theory, the procedural protections provided are inadequate.
This paper considers the impact which European human rights law has made upon the common law rules of evidence with reference to the approach the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted towards exclusionary rules. Particular attention will be given to rules that have been developed by the ECtHR in relation to the right to counsel during police questioning (the so-called ‘Salduz’ doctrine) and the right to examine witnesses (the so-called ‘sole or decisive’ evidence rule). It will be argued that the most recent decisions in these respects appear to dilute some of the impact that these rules appeared to have made to the common law and diminish the effectiveness of the Court as a setter of evidentiary standards for domestic jurisdictions.
At the time of his arrest in April 2002, Yang Jianli was a thirty-nine- year-old scholar and democracy activist, who was well known for his efforts to promote democracy in China. Born a Chinese citizen, Yang had resided in the United States since 1986. He holds doctoral degrees in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley and in political economy and government from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.1 Yang was the founder and president of the Foundation for China 21st Century, through which he promoted the cause of democracy in China.