Law Commons^™

Repuation And Character In Defamation Actions, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: Not The "Expressed Juice Of The Woolly-Headed Thistle", Keith A. Fabi

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Proof Of Statistical Significance Relevant?, D.H. Kaye

Washington Law Review

This article examines the status of significance testing in litigation. Part I describes the case law on the need for the procedure. Part II explains the nature and terminology of hypothesis testing as used in court. Part III enumerates some of the problems that arise in these forensic applications, and Part IV pursues one such problem-that of selecting a "significance level." These sections show that explicit hypothesis testing is poorly suited for courtroom use. Statements as to what results are or are not "statistically significant" should be inadmissible. Part V suggests the use of other statistical tools and terms that …

Judicial Notice: An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding, E. F. Roberts

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Articles limning the law pertaining to judicial notice are legion, and the footnotes which have been cite checked by generations of law review editors must number in the thousands. These articles assume that reason, properly employed, produces correct answers. They assume that disagreements can be resolved by reason, because it is self-evident that any problem, once identified, can be solved. Reflected here are the presuppositions of lawyers brought up in the Western legal tradition.

What if one were to doubt that reason necessarily governed the behavior of lawyers? What if one doubted as well that all problems were susceptible to …

Be Not The First By Whom The New Are Tried, Nor Yet The Last To Lay The Old Aside: Is The Present Sense Impression Exception To The Rule Against Hearsay The Law Of Pennsylvania?, Robert Berkley Harper

Scholarship

Pennsylvania has long been a common law jurisdiction as to the rules of evidence, but recently the courts have considered several modern views relating to the rules of evidence. One modern view of evidence considered by the state's supreme court is the present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay. This exception was considered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1974, but the decision left many questions as to the status and meaning of this new exception. The author traces the development of this new exception to the hearsay rule and makes recommendations as to clarifications that the …

Tests Of Contractual Integration

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Polygraph Protection Act Of 1985: Bobbing Pinocchio's New Nose?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

18 U.S.C. § 3501 And The Admissibility Of Confessions Obtained During Unnecessary Prearraignment Delay, Matthew W. Frank

Michigan Law Review

Part I thus argues that the admissibility of post-sixth-hour confessions is governed by Mallory, under which a voluntary confession is inadmissible if, but only if, it follows a period of unnecessary delay. Part II addresses a possible objection to this conclusion - namely, that, with limited exceptions, subsection 350l(c) renders all post-sixth hour confessions inadmissible without regard to the reasonableness of the prearraignment delay. This interpretation is derived by negative implication from the proviso in subsection 350l(c) and would require courts to suppress confessions even though there has been no unnecessary delay, and even though the confessions would be …

Interlocutory Appeal Of Preindictment Suppression Motions Under Rule 41 ( E ), Clifford A. Godiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that preindictment rulings denying 41(e) motions are not immediately appealable. Part I discusses decisions that mandate dismissal of such appeals for want of jurisdiction. Part II examines the policy rationales behind these precedents. Finally, Part III argues that an adequate remedy exists outside of rule 41(e), rendering immediate appellate review of rulings on 41(e) motions unnecessary.

The Perils Of Privilege: Waiver And The Litigator, Richard L. Marcus

Michigan Law Review

Waiver can be made less tricky, although it will never yield algebraic accuracy. Focusing on civil litigation, this article develops a framework for waiver decisions. It begins by stressing a factor that others have neglected - the costs generated by broad traditional waiver rules. These costs result largely from changes in lawyer behavior to reduce waiver risks. Thus, enormous energy can be expended to guarantee that privileged materials are not inadvertently revealed in discovery, and lawyers may adopt elaborate witness preparation strategies in order to prevent witnesses from seeing privileged materials. Judges also feel the burden; where waiver is at …

Chao V. State, 478 So. 2d (Fla. 1985), George C. Matlock

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Law/Evidence-ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY TESTIMONY ON OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS MADE TO A WITNESS THROUGH AN INTERPRETER

On The Exclusivity Of The Hague Evidence Convention, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

As the world grows smaller and nations become more interdependent, the likelihood that litigation will involve foreign property, parties, or activities increases tremendously. To prepare and conduct such litigation, the lawyer may need to obtain information "located" in a foreign jurisdiction: a person located abroad may know the information; documents located abroad may contain the information; or the information may describe conditions or property located abroad. The question of when relatively burdensome, internationally-approved methods of obtaining such information must be used thus becomes more and more important.

Consider a product liability suit for damages in the United States arising from …

Admission Of Evidence Of Other Misconduct In Washington To Prove Intent Or Absence Of Mistake Or Accident: The Logical Inconsistencies Of Evidence Rule 404(B), Eric D. Lansverk

Washington Law Review

In Washington, the introduction of evidence of other misconduct to show intent or absence of mistake or accident has proven particularly troublesome. Washington courts have made no attempt to delineate the differences between proof of intent and proof of absence of mistake or accident. Nor have they satisfactorily distinguished either of the proofs from a mere showing of propensity to commit crime. By failing to make these distinctions, the courts undermine the letter and spirit of ER 404(b). The lack of clear standards to guide application of the intent and absence of mistake or accident aspects of ER 404(b) leaves …

The Cost Of Acceptability: Blue Buses, Agent Orange, And Aversion To Statistical Evidence, Neil B. Cohen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Application Problems Arising From The Good Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Robert C. Gleason

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing The Process Of Proof, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

When I began teaching evidence seventeen years ago, the field was moribund. The great systematizers of the common law-Wigmore, Maguire, McCormick, Morgan and their ilk-had come and, if they had not all already gone, their work was largely finished. Not only was most of what passed for evidence scholarship barely worth the reading-the same, after all, could be said of many fields of law at most times-but disregarding student work, few scholars were writing regularly on evidentiary matters.

Direct Examination: Some Evidentiary And Practical Considerations, W. Dent Gitchel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Resolving The Frye Dilemma: A Reliability Approach, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Emerging "Victim Factor" In The Supreme Court's Criminal Jurisprudence: Should Victims' Interests Ever Prevent A Court From Overturning A Conviction And Ordering A Retrial?, Roger A. Pauley

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Policing The Bases Of Modern Expert Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The expanding array of scientific (as well as some not-so-scientific) specialties available as sources for testimony raises hard questions. Will courts require that the witness' opinions be reasonably based upon trustworthy data? How far must judges inquire into the practice of other experts in the same field prior to allowing the trial witness to proffer an expert opinion? How much of the expert's supporting data will be received in evidence? This Essay addresses these and other important questions affecting the scope of modern expert testimony.

Vii. Evidence

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Extraterritorial Discovery And The Conflict Of Procedural Systems: Germany And The United States, David J. Gerber

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Implied Hearsay, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Lawyers sometimes exaggerate the significance of a single sentence or footnote in a court opinion. At other times a single phrase may turn out to be a time bomb which subsequently explodes with far reaching result:i. Court watchers thus spend considerable time trying to discern what is implied within the literal language of a court's opinion. It is no small irony that one of the latest implications in a Virginia Supreme Court decision relates to the implications contained within an out-of-court statement that cannot be literally defined as hearsay. A modification of the hearsay rule, or at least the hearsay …

Extraterritorial Discovery: Cooperation, Coercion And The Hague Evidence Convention, Harold G. Maier

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article reviews the most recent case law on this issue and examines the results of those cases in the light of existing principles of comity and of the newly promulgated Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised). The analysis focuses on three important appellate court decisions, all of which are or have been before the United States Supreme Court, and examines the contents and origins of the United States Government's position on these issues as found in amicus briefs submitted in these cases. The article concludes with an evaluation of the dilemma evidenced by the need …

Casenotes Criminal Law — Evidence — Expert Testimony That Rape Victim Suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Is Admissible To Rebut A Defense Of Consent. State V. Allewalt, 308 Md. 89, 517 A.2d 741 (1986), Robert C. Sanders

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evaluation Of Subjective Selection Systems In Title Vii Employment Discrimination Cases: A Misuse Of Disparate Impact Analysis, Stacey B. Babson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony: Is It Legally Relevant To A Criminal Proceeding In Ohio, Thomas H. Allison

Cleveland State Law Review

In the past twenty years a growing number of courts, both state and federal, have addressed the problem of the admissibility in a criminal trial of testimony by a witness whose memory has been "refreshed" by the use of pre-trial hypnosis. Some courts are of the opinion that hypnosis is nothing more than a memory aid, to be treated like any other device to refresh recollection. Other courts believe hypnosis is more of a "science," and as such should be treated consistently with the rules for the admission of other scientific evidence. While the reliability of using hypnosis to refresh …

Improving Expert Testimony, Jack B. Weinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

Our real world outside the ivory towers of academia and the courts grows more and more complex. The law's use of expert witnesses has expanded at a pace reflective of society's reliance on specialized knowledge. Hardly a case of importance is tried today in the federal courts without the involvement of a number of expert witnesses.

Is Proof Of Statistical Significance Relevant?, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

The classic treatises on evidence note that the court or jury must weigh the evidence, and upon weighing it, determine whether the plaintiff or the defendant prevails. Some courts, however, have indicated that statistical evidence should not be admitted unless it is subjected to a procedure known as 'hypothesis testing.' There are many rather mechanical procedures for performing these tests and a number of judges, attorneys, and law professors have suggested that hypothesis testing provides an objective, scientific means of settling disputed questions on which statistical evidence is brought to bear. Yet, many circumstances arise in which courts or administrators …