Digital Commons Network^™

Hear Me Now: The Admission Of Expert Testimony On Battered Women's Syndrome—An Evidentiary Approach, Matthew Fine

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of Deliberate Miranda Violations: How Two-Step National Security Interrogations Undermine Miranda And Destabilize Fifth Amendment Protections, Lee Ross Crain

Michigan Law Review

As part of the global “War on Terror,” federal agents intentionally delay issuing Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects during custodial interrogations. They delay the warnings presuming that unwarned suspects will more freely offer vital national security intelligence. After a suspect offers the information he has, agents administer Miranda warnings and attempt to elicit confessions that prosecutors can use at the suspect’s trial. No court has ruled on the constitutionality of this two-step national security interrogation process to determine whether admitting the second, warned confession is allowed under Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny. A fragmented Supreme Court examined two-step interrogations …

The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance To The Daubert Revolution, David E. Bernstein

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article reviews the history of the evolution of the rules for the admissibility of expert testimony since the 1980s, the revolutionary nature of what ultimately emerged, and the consistent efforts by recalcitrant judges to stop or roll back the changes, even after Rule 702 was amended to explicitly incorporate a strict interpretation of those changes.

Part I reviews the law of expert testimony through the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision. Critics had charged for decades that the adversarial system was a failure with regard to expert testimony. Parties to litigation, they argued, often presented expert testimony of dubious validity because …

Supplementing The Record In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: What If The Evidence You Need Is Not In The Record?, George C. Harris, Xiang Li

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Testifying Minors: Pre-Trial Strategies To Reduce Anxiety In Child Witnesses, Dawn Hathaway Thoman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Sharpening The Tools Of An Adequate Defense: Providing For The Appointment Of Experts For Indigent Defendants In Child Death Cases Under Ake V. Oklahoma, Laurel Gilbert

San Diego Law Review

This Comment proposes that because of ongoing concerns regarding the reliability and validity of forensic science in the United States, the Due Process Clause constitutionally mandates the appointment of forensic experts for indigent defendants in criminal cases arising out of a child’s death if the prosecution relies on forensic evidence. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the current law governing the admissibility of forensic expert testimony in criminal cases and explains why these admissibility standards create a need for the appointment of defense forensic experts to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Part III then discusses Due …

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

Book Review: Errol Morris, “A Wilderness Of Error”: Provocative But Unpersuasive, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Military Trial At Rennes: Text And Subtext Of The Dreyfus Affair, Vivian G. Curran

Touro Law Review

Discusses the Dreyfus affair and how the outside world viewed France's conduct. This article provides insight into how the trial was conducted and the evidence that was offered.

The Duty Of The Prosecutor To Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States V. Agurs, Christian F. Dubia Jr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Subverting Brady V. Maryland And Denying A Fair Trial: Studying The Schuelke Report, Bennett L. Gershman

Mercer Law Review

The Schuelke Report about the ill-fated federal prosecution of the late-Senator Ted Stevens is an extraordinary contribution to criminal procedure. No other official documentation or investigative study of a criminal prosecution, to my knowledge, has dissected and analyzed as carefully and thoroughly the sordid and clandestine actions of a team of prosecutors who zealously wanted to win a criminal conviction at all costs. In examining this Report, one gets the feeling that as the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens unfolded and the prosecution's theory of guilt unraveled, the prosecutors became indifferent to the defendant's guilt or innocence. They just …

The Proposed Fairness In Disclosure Of Evidence Act Of 2012: More Cons Than Pros With Proposed Disclosure Requirements In Federal Criminal Cases, Jacquelyn Smith

Mercer Law Review

The proposed Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012 (the Act) is a proposal of uniform standards for disclosing evidence in federal criminal cases that was introduced on March 15, 2012 by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.' The Act's stated purpose is: "To require the attorney for the Government to disclose favorable information to the defendant in criminal prosecutions brought by the United States, and for

Williams V. Illinois: Confronting Experts, Science, And The Constitution, Natasha Crawford

Mercer Law Review

DNA evidence has revolutionized forensic science, making it the "single greatest advance in the search for truth.., since the advent of cross-examination." In Williams v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding that there was no Confrontation Clause violation where experts based their testimony on another analyst's DNA report that was not admitted into evidence. The Court held an expert may assume the truth of certain facts-such as a DNA profile contained in a forensic report-to offer testimony based on those facts without testifying to the truth of the matter asserted. Until Williams, the …

Prosecutorial Disclosure Violations: Punishment Vs. Treatment, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Mercer Law Review

Recent scholarship on prosecutorial disclosure violations proposes preventing violations through understanding and remedying the causes of violations, such as cognitive error. Scholars who adopt this view-what I call here the "treatment perspective"-often call for greater transparency and cooperation from prosecutors. A frequently unacknowledged tension exists between such a treatment perspective and a more traditional perspective-what I call here the "punishment perspective"-that seeks to deter disclosure violations through greater use of sanctions such as professional discipline.

The tension arises because increasing the certainty and severity of sanctions, as the punishment perspective urges, creates a powerful disincentive for individual prosecutors and prosecutor …

Counsel's Control Over The Presentation Of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing, James Michael Blakemore

Michigan Law Review

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's assistance. A lawyer's assistance, however, sometimes interferes with a defendant's control over his case. As a result, the Supreme Court, over time, has had to delineate the spheres of authority that pertain to counsel and defendant respectively. The Court has not yet decisively assigned control over mitigating evidence to either counsel or defendant. This Note argues that counsel should control the presentation of mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. First, and most importantly, decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence are best characterized …

Two Notes On Evidence: Privileges And Hearsay, J. W. Deese

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Defending The Preponderance Of The Evidence Standard In College Adjudications Of Sexual Assault, Amy Chmielewski

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Is It Safe? The Need For State Ethical Rules To Keep Pace With Technological Advances, Ann M. Murphy

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Nature And Purpose Of Evidence Theory, Michael S. Pardo

Vanderbilt Law Review

pproximately twenty-five years ago, Professor Richard Lempert, reflecting on the then-current state of evidence scholarship, noted a dramatic shift underway.' He described what had become a largely "moribund" field giving way to a burgeoning "new evidence scholarship." The scholarship in the moribund phase employed "a timid kind of deconstructionism with no overarching critical theory," was "seldom interesting," and any "potential utility" was "rarely realized"; Lempert proposed the following mock article title as a model representing the genre: "What's Wrong with the Twenty-Ninth Exception to the Hearsay Rule and How the Addition of Three Words Can Correct the Problem." By contrast, …

Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier

Florida Law Review

"I wouldn’t wish what I am going through on anyone," Senator Ted Stevens commented after losing his seat in the United States Senate on November 18, 2008. Senator Stevens lost the race largely because a criminal conviction damaged his reputation. After Senator Stevens endured months of contentious litigation, the jury convicted the longest serving Republican senator in United States history on seven felony counts of ethics violations. Six months later, the presiding judge, the Honorable Emmet Sullivan, vacated the conviction at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder because of blatant failures to disclose exculpatory evidence. Senator Stevens brings a …

Drug Use And The Exclusionary Manque, Jerome A. Busch

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …

Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence In Civil Cases: Could This Be The Path Out Of The Labyrinth Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Richard J. Hanscom

Pepperdine Law Review

The use of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases has been the subject of extensive debate since its inception. Although most efforts to modify the rule have been deemed unworkable, the author proposes a modification that is both workable and sensible. Modification would be accomplished by legislation which admits the results of illegal searches by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith, and, at the same time, provide fixed monetary sanctions against the governmental agencies whose officers conducted the search. The author proposes a good faith balancing test to determine evidence admissibility and administrative type proceedings to determine monetary …

Child Witnesses In Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, And Proposals For Reform, Dominic J. Fote

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, And The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Ben Trachtenberg

Florida Law Review

Using the example of a recent major terrorism prosecution, this Article addresses “coventurer hearsay” in the context of the ongoing Confrontation Clause debate concerning the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. Courts have recently begun admitting hearsay evidence pursuant to a revisionist interpretation of the coconspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule. Under the new “lawful joint venture” theory, a hearsay statement may be admitted as a coconspirator statement if made in furtherance of a “joint undertaking”—defined as pretty much any cooperative activity—even if the “conspiracy” is not illegal. Because this new interpretation of an old hearsay …

Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Modern Trial And Evidence Law: Has The "Rambling Altercation" Become A Pedantic Joust?, Daniel D. Blinka

Georgia Law Review

This Article places the relationship between evidence
rules and the modern trial in a historical context. The
trial's foundation is in popular culture-lay witnesses
testifying before a lay jury. Eighteenth-century trials were
a "rambling altercation" between the defendant and his
accusers-unruly (literally), unstructured, very brief, and
less concerned with the "truth"than a socially acceptable
judgment. The modern trial's emergence in the nineteenth
century coincided with the professionalization of law, the
active involvement of lawyers as advocates, and the
sprouting of evidence rules to regulate both lawyers and
lay juries. Nonetheless, evidence law accommodated
prevailing lay culture in order to foster …