Digital Commons Network^™

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted by Congress, adopted by 34 states and has survived for over 35 years. How did this happen? What is …

“Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided “Not Hearsay” Terminology.”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

Deal Or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants To Present Evidence That They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

Federal Rule of Evidence 410 deems inadmissible statements made during plea discussions when offered “against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in plea discussions….” Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Mezzanatto, however, prosecutors can, and often do, force defendants to waive the protections of this Rule to get to the plea bargaining table. Conversely, courts categorically have found that defendants cannot present evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains, despite the plain language of the Rule not precluding the admission of such evidence. This article addresses the question of whether courts can …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

People V. Bermudez: Is A Freestanding Claim Of Actual, Factual Innocence A Ground For Reversal Under The New York State Constitution?, Gregory C. Rosenfeld

Gregory C Rosenfeld

No abstract provided.

Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In this symposium contribution, I argue that (1) courts infringe on jurors' deliberative autonomy in a morally problematic way whenever they refuse to admit evidence that is both relevant and reasonably available; (2) this infringement is especially problematic in the Fourth Amendment setting; and (3) although there are several ways in which these moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, the best approach might be to abandon the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule entirely.

Evaluating Children’S Competency To Testify: Developing A Rational Method To Assess A Young Child’S Capacity To Offer Reliable Testimony In Cases Alleging Child Sex Abuse, Laurie Shanks

Laurie Shanks

There are few crimes which elicit a response as emotionally charged as those involving an allegation of child sexual abuse. Given the paucity of physical and scientific evidence in many cases and the resulting need to rely almost exclusively on the testimony of a very young child, the cases present unique challenges for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. While many scholars have addressed the dangers inherent in questioning children, such as creating false memories and improperly influencing testimony, there has been little exploration of the means employed by courts to evaluate a child’s ability to offer reliable testimony. Many …

Coconspirators, "Coventurers," And The Exception Swallowing The Hearsay Rule, Ben L.W. Trachtenberg

Ben L.W. Trachtenberg

In recent years, prosecutors—sometimes with the blessing of courts—have argued that when proving the existence of a “conspiracy” to justify admission of evidence under the Coconspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule, they need show only that the declarant and the defendant were “coventurers” with a common purpose, not coconspirators with an illegal purpose. Indeed, government briefs and court decisions specifically disclaim the need to show any wrongful goal whatsoever. This Article contends that such a reading of the Exception is mistaken and undesirable. Conducted for this Article, a survey of thousands of court decisions, including the earliest English and American …

Fire Pattern Analysis, Junk Science, Old Wives Tales, And Ipse Dixit: Emerging Forensic 3d Imaging Technologies To The Rescue?, Thomas R. May

Thomas R. May

No abstract provided.

Forensic Science Evidence And Judicial Bias In Criminal Cases, Hon. Donald E. Shelton

Hon. Donald E. Shelton

Although DNA exonerations and the NAS report have raised serious questions about the validity of many traditional non-DNA forms of forensic science evidence, criminal court judges continue to admit virtually all prosecution-proferred expert testimony. It is is suggested that this is the result of a systemic pro-prosecution bias by judges that is reflected in admissibility decisions. These "attitudinal blinders" are especially prevalent in state criminal trial and appellate courts.

Necessary Third Parties: Multidisciplinary Collaboration And Inadequate Professional Privileges In Domestic Violence Practice, Jeffrey R. Baker

Jeffrey R Baker

The rise of multidisciplinary practices among public-interest lawyers and other professionals promotes more effective and thorough services for vulnerable clients. In various forms, these professionals are creating formal or ad hoc partnerships as they minster to whole clients, not just to a client’s peculiar, momentary problem. For a victim of domestic violence, these collaborations can yield better outcomes and fruitful service, but they may also be critical to her very survival. As the common client works to escape a violent, oppressive relationship, her diverse professional servants must address the acute conflation of legal, medical, psychological, emotional and financial crises that …

Toward A General Theory Of Standards Of Proof, Fredrick E. Vars

Fredrick E Vars

Which standard of proof is best for a particular type of case? This deceptively simple question has been much discussed, but the current state of understanding is unsatisfactory. Statisticians posed a general answer; philosophers and others launched an assault on that answer; practically oriented scholars draw on both strains unsystematically; and courts generally offer little or no reasoning for their decisions. The goal of this article is to outline a systematic and complete justification for selecting one probabilistic standard of proof over another. By training a microscope on one small corner of the law---incapacity will contests---this article demonstrates the relevance …