Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Collateral Estoppel Without Mutuality: Accepting The Bernhard Doctrine, William S. Byassee
Collateral Estoppel Without Mutuality: Accepting The Bernhard Doctrine, William S. Byassee
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Note adopts a more moderate position: the Bernhard doctrine is but a minor alteration of collateral estoppel principles. It has not and will not generate the unfairness and injustice that its critics have predicted. After tracing the development of the principle of collateral estoppel from its origins in early English common law, this Note discusses some suggested justifications for the mutuality requirement and some generally accepted exceptions to its use. It then examines the growth of the Bernhard doctrine and compares how the courts have applied both the mutuality requirement and the Bernhard doctrine. Finally, the Note seeks to …
Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(3) And The Criminal Defendant: The Limits Of The Hillmon Doctrine, Thomas A. Wiseman, Iii
Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(3) And The Criminal Defendant: The Limits Of The Hillmon Doctrine, Thomas A. Wiseman, Iii
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Note has examined the use of the common-law Hillmon doctrine and rule 803(3) in a limited context. Several approaches are available to a court that considers whether to admit a Hillmon statement. A court in a jurisdiction that still applies the common-law hearsay rule may adhere to the status quo. Ample authority exists to permit this approach. Nevertheless, because admission of a Hillmon statement risks certain inherent dangers, a common-law court should avoid a perfunctory application of the exception. Instead, the court must examine carefully each Hillmon statement to ensure that it does not prejudice the defendant's right to …