BEYOND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE: ANALYZING CONSTITUTION-BASED EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS IN THREE PARTS Codified rules of evidence provide judges with a framework for ruling on most evidence objections, but because evidence rules are subject to constitutional requirements, judges often must also apply vaguely defined principles arising under the Due Process, Compulsory Process, and Confrontation Clauses. This three part series will guide judges through the proper analysis for constitution-based evidence objections.

PART 3: A JUDGE’S GUIDE TO ANALYZING DUE PROCESS, COMPULSORY PROCESS, AND RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE CLAIMS Criminal defense lawyers are trained to “constitutionalize” their objections. This often leads counsel to object that a ruling “violates due process,” “deprives the accused of the right to present a defense,” or unconstitutionally infringes on the right to cross-examination. To address these objections, trial judges must apply various balancing tests that the Supreme Court adopted in decisions recognizing these rights. During this session, judges will identify, compare, and apply the tests to common scenarios.