id,collection,dc.contributor.other[],dc.creator[],dc.date.accessioned,dc.date.available,dc.date.issued[],dc.description[],dc.format.issue[],dc.format.startpage[],dc.format.volume[],dc.identifier.uri,dc.language[],dc.publisher[],dc.subject.classification,dc.title[],dc.type[],dcterms.bibliographicCitation[],refterms.dateFOA "2495","10898/5354","HeinOnline","Whitlock, Christopher A.","2018-11-30T20:41:25Z","2018-11-30T20:41:25Z","1991","Case Note","2","883","42","http://hdl.handle.net/10898/7778","English","Mercer University: Walter F. George School of Law","Evidence||Testimony||Videotapes||Witnesses||Criminal Law and Procedure","Mercer Law Review Vol. 042 Issue 02-041 pg. 0883 - Admissibility of Video-Taped Testimony: What Is the Standard after Maryland v. Craig and How Will the Practicing Defense Attorney Be Affected","Text","42 Mercer L. Rev. 883 (1990-1991)","2020-09-29T13:42:06Z"