backgammon

(redirected from Crawford rule)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.

backgammon

(băk`găm'ən, băk'găm`ən), game of chance and skill played by two persons upon a specially marked board divided by a space, called the bar, into two tables (inner table and outer table), each of which has 12 alternately colored points, or triangular spaces. Players move along the board according to the rolls of two dice, and the object is to remove one's 15 pieces, or disks, from the board first. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans played a form of backgammon probably derived from the earlier Indian game of Parcheesi. After the 10th cent. A.D. it became popular in Europe.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia™ Copyright © 2013, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

backgammon

1. a game for two people played on a board with pieces moved according to throws of the dice
2. the most complete form of win in this game
www.worldbackgammonfederation.com
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005

backgammon

This article is provided by FOLDOC - Free Online Dictionary of Computing (foldoc.org)
References in periodicals archive ?
Over the last three years, the Crawford rule of confrontation has provoked more than mere "interim uncertainty" for all types of criminal adjudications.
(99) While these questions will both will be addressed below, it is the third question--the defendant's prior opportunity to cross-examine a witness--that will prove most useful in explaining how children's voices can continue to be heard within the bounds of the Crawford rule. (100)
(112) The question thus remains: How can prosecutors ensure that children's voices continue to be heard in CSA cases while also working within the boundaries of the Crawford rule?
Under the Crawford rule of confrontation, obstacles to admitting ex parte statements only arise when a child is deemed unavailable to appear at trial.
Under the Crawford rule of confrontation, children's once admissible ex parte statements are now much more frequently excluded for their "testimonial nature." (122) Because the causes of children's unavailability have not changed, however, children are no less likely now than they were before Crawford to suffer severe trauma from the experience of testifying at trial.
The best way to interpret and define how a "prior opportunity for cross-examination" could constitute sufficient confrontation is by looking at the language of the Crawford rule. (125) First, the word "prior" indicates that confrontation need not take place at trial, but can occur at an earlier proceeding.
(131) There are three main aspects of the Craig decision that provide guidance for determining what constitutes sufficient confrontation under the Crawford rule. First, the Craig decision highlighted the Confrontation Clause's overarching purpose--the attainment of reliable testimony--as the guiding principle under which sufficient confrontation is established.
As a result, instead of perpetuating the distribution of unfair advantages, the "prior opportunity for cross-examination" component of the new Crawford rule presents a starting point from which to re-balance the seesaw of advantages in CSA cases.
747, 783-800 (2005) (addressing potential ways of satisfying a defendant's prior opportunity for cross-examination in CSA cases); Mosteller, Crawford's Impact, supra note 11 (identifying how domestic violence cases can incorporate the prior opportunity to cross-examine unavailable witnesses in an effort to meet the Crawford rule); Robert P.