{"id":2358,"date":"2019-08-12T08:32:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-12T12:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2358"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:57:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:57:21","slug":"course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/","title":{"rendered":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The dilemma is simple, the law growing more complex.\u00a0 A prosecutor wants to tell a rich and complete story, and asks the Officer or Detective how or why a suspect came to be arrested, or even how a person became the focus of police scrutiny or came to be in a photo array.\u00a0 Yet eliciting that information comes at higher and higher risk \u2013 the more complete the story, the more the Constitution might be violated.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

How does this crop up?\u00a0 In a criminal case, a police officer might be asked to explain what led to the arrest of the defendant, or what caused that person to be placed in a lineup or photo identification procedure.\u00a0 The answer might be any of the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cUpon information received, I proceeded to arrest the defendant.\u201d<\/li>\n
  2. \u201cAfter interviewing witnesses to the shooting, I placed the defendant\u2019s photo into an array of photos to show to the victim.\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. \u201cMy informant told me that [name of defendant] was involved in the drug deal.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The most recent decision to address this practice found that testimony parallel to example \u201c3\u201d brought inadmissible hearsay into the case and, in so doing, violated the right of the accused to confront adverse witnesses.\u00a0 The ruling came from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

    The case is United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14550, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 21275 (5th<\/sup> Circuit, May 16, 2019).\u00a0 There, Jones was pursued by police after seeing an apparent drug deal.\u00a0 The police lost sight of Jones\u2019 vehicle for a brief period, and when they found him there was no contraband in his vehicle.\u00a0 Police did find a firearm and drugs on the stretch of road where Jones was out of their view.<\/p>\n

    At trial, an issue arose as to why police chose to follow Jones rather than another person who was at the scene of the alleged transaction.\u00a0 Defense counsel sought to highlight that the police did not \u201cknow,\u201d i.e.<\/em> directly observe, that Jones had drugs.\u00a0\u00a0 The following redirect examination occurred:<\/p>\n

    Prosecutor: [Defense counsel] also asked you, let me characterize this, sort of confronted you about when you said you knew a drug deal had gone down, but you had not seen anything. Do you recall that?<\/p>\n

    Agent Clayborne: That’s correct.<\/p>\n

    Prosecutor: How did you know that a drug deal had, in fact, occurred?<\/p>\n

    Agent Clayborne: So once we saw or the other units saw what looked like a drug deal, I made a phone call to my confidential source, who then made some phone calls himself and got back to me that the deal had happened<\/em>. (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

    Prosecutor: Based on that information, you decided to stop Coy Jones?<\/p>\n

    Agent Clayborne: That’s correct.<\/p>\n

    The Fifth Circuit first articulated guiding principles to balance the need for \u201ccourse of conduct\u201d testimony against the rights of the accused:<\/p>\n

    A witness’s statement to police that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged is highly likely to influence the direction of a criminal investigation. But a police officer cannot repeat such out-of-court accusations at trial, even if helpful to explain why the defendant became a suspect or how the officer was able to obtain a search warrant.<\/p>\n

    The Circuit distinguished between \u201csimpl[e] background information showing the police officers did not act without reason\u201d and out-of-court information that \u201cpoint[s] specifically to the defendant\u2026\u201d\u00a0 It also gave illustrations of instances where the testimony crossed the line:<\/p>\n

    See Kizzee<\/em>, 877 F.3d at 659-60 (holding that a detective’s testimony that he was able to obtain a search warrant for the defendant’s house after questioning a witness about drug purchases violated the Confrontation Clause); Taylor<\/em>, 545 F.3d at 331, 336 (finding a violation of clearly established law when an officer testified that he was able to develop a suspect after an unnamed individual told him “that the perpetrator was Bruce”); United States v. Hernandez<\/em>, 750 F.2d 1256, 1257 (5th Cir. 1985) (rejecting argument that hearsay evidence identifying the defendant as a drug smuggler was permissibly used “to explain the motivation behind DEA’s investigation”).<\/p>\n

    Perhaps more important, the Fifth Circuit held that a limiting instruction \u2013 an explanation that jurors should use this information not to decide whether the accused was guilty but instead to understand why the police took certain steps \u2013 did not take the proof out of the realm of hearsay or otherwise cure the constitutional problem.\u00a0 The Circuit concluded that because hearsay detailing a defendant\u2019s criminal activity is too powerful, a limiting instruction cannot work.\u00a0 Likening it to the use of a codefendant\u2019s confession at trial, the Court stated that \u201csome statements are so \u2018powerfully incriminating\u2019 that they are not cured by jury instructions.\u201d\u00a0 Notably, the Second Circuit reached that same conclusion earlier this year, at least when the statement used to explain police behavior is that of a codefendant.\u00a0 Orlando v. Nassau Cty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 915 F.3d 113, 122 (2nd<\/sup> Cir. 2019).
    \nWhat does this mean in Pennsylvania? \u00a0There is decisional law calling for courts to be circumspect before allowing \u201ccourse of conduct\u201d statements, in particular Commonwealth v. <\/em>Palsa<\/em>, 521 Pa. 113, 555 A.2d 808 (Pa.1989),\u00a0 However, there has been great if not excessive tolerance of \u201ccourse of\u00a0 conduct\u201d testimony.\u00a0 Illustrative is the following summary of caselaw approving such testimony:<\/p>\n

    In multiple cases, courts have held out-of-court statements to police officers admissible to explain the officers’ course of conduct, notwithstanding the speaker’s absence from the witness stand and the possibility of prejudice. See Commonwealth v. Weiss<\/em>, 622 Pa. 663, 81 A.3d 767, 805-06 (Pa.2013) (in capital murder trial, state trooper’s testimony that he received anonymous telephone call that defendant had given victim ride home on night she disappeared was not inadmissible hearsay, where Commonwealth offered testimony not to prove that defendant had given victim ride home but to explain what prompted trooper’s interview with defendant); Commonwealth v. Trinidad<\/em>, 2014 PA Super 78, 96 A.3d 1031, 1036-37 (Pa.Super.2014) (in jury trial, court properly allowed detective to testify about recorded statement he took from an individual concerning victim’s murder); Commonwealth v. Cruz<\/em>, 489 Pa. 559, 414 A.2d 1032, 1035 (Pa.1980) (content of police radio call did not constitute hearsay where Commonwealth introduced call to explain police conduct and not to prove truth of content of tape); but see Commonwealth v. Mosley<\/em>, 2015 PA Super 88, 114 A.3d 1072, 1078 (Pa.Super.2015) (error to admit officer’s testimony that he was responding to informant’s complaint of “drug activity” at apartment complex, where court failed to give jury cautionary instruction as to its limited admissibility).<\/p>\n

    Commonwealth v. Smith<\/u>, 2016 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2841, *5-6, 156 A.3d 330.\u00a0 That same case also affirms that a limiting instruction will \u2018fix\u2019 the problem.<\/p>\n

    Fifth Circuit precedent is not binding upon Pennsylvania courts.\u00a0 But the holding should cause courts to re-examine the lax approach to admissibility of such background\/context testimony.\u00a0 Returning to the three paradigms of testimony detailed at the beginning of this article, option one [“Upon information received, I proceeded to arrest the defendant\u201d] is unlikely to raise a constitutional claim, particularly with a limiting instruction; and option three [\u201cMy informant told me that [name of defendant] was involved in the drug deal\u201d] clearly will.<\/p>\n

    The second option \u2013 \u201cAfter interviewing witnesses to the shooting, I placed the defendant\u2019s photo into an array of photos to show to the victim\u201d \u2013 is where too many cases fall, and clearly raises the Constitutional concerns.\u00a0 It is glaringly implicit \u2013 what the witnesses said was that the suspect was involved in some way.\u00a0 Prosecutors should proceed with caution, using such proof only when the issue of why a person became a suspect is necessary to the case and with a strong limiting instruction; and defense counsel must raise constitutional as well as hearsay objections to such testimony.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The dilemma is simple, the law growing more complex.\u00a0 A prosecutor wants to tell a rich and complete story, and asks the Officer or Detective how or why a suspect came to be arrested, or even how a person became the focus of police scrutiny or came to be in a photo array.\u00a0 Yet eliciting<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,6,7],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-criminal-law","category-evidence"],"yoast_head":"\nCOURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"550\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION?\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\"},\"wordCount\":1282,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy\",\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Evidence\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\",\"name\":\"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00\",\"description\":\"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct\\\" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct\" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct\" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":550,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION?","datePublished":"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/"},"wordCount":1282,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg","articleSection":["Advocacy","Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Criminal Law","Evidence"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/","name":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION? - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg","datePublished":"2019-08-12T12:32:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:57:21+00:00","description":"When prosecutors offer 'course of conduct\" testimony to explain why a person was investigated or arrested, they often elicit explicit or implict accusations - and now a court has made clear that doing so may violate the Constitution.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/05\/Sixth-Amendment-300x218.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/08\/12\/course-of-conduct-or-confrontation-violation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"COURSE OF CONDUCT \u2013 OR CONFRONTATION VIOLATION?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2358"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2358\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3368,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2358\/revisions\/3368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2358"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}