Law Commons^™

When Children And The Elderly Are Victims: Balancing The Rights Of The Accused Against Those Of The Victim, Professor Charles W. Ehrhardt

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Response, Celina E. Contreras

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Recipe For Confusion: Congress And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Professor Daniel J. Capra

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Out-Of-Court Accusations Offered For "Background": A Measured Response From The Federal Courts, Professor Daniel J. Capra

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tales Out Of School-Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Professor Christopher B. Mueller

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rebuttal, Bryant M. Richardson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Polygraph Evidence And Repressed Memory Evidence When Offered By The Accused, Yvette J. Bessent

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perry Mason Meets The "Legitimate Tendency" Standard Of Admissibility (And Doesn't Like What He Sees), Brett C. Powell

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony On Eyewitness Identification: Admissibility And Alternatives, Thomas Dillickrath

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of Innocence Offered By The Criminal Defendant: "Not So Fast"; Response, Professor Kenneth W. Graham Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Response, Yvette J. Bessent

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Has Florida Won Or Lost The Battle By Eliminating Section 90.803(4) As An Alternative Tool In Prosecuting Child Sexual Abuse?, Celina E. Contreras

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey marks the fifteenth year the author has surveyed Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. This survey year saw the continuation of what has become a clear trend in Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit, and other courts, rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now carefully defers to district judges. The reason for this trend can be debated. Perhaps, given that most evidentiary issues addressed by the Eleventh Circuit arise in the context of criminal cases, Eleventh Circuit judges are today more conservative and thus …

Title Vii Quid Pro Quo And Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment Claims: Changing The Legal Framework Courts Use To Determine Whether Challenged Conduct Is Unwelcome, Elsie Mata

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In examining the nature of sexual harassment claims, the author challenges the use of the "unwelcomeness" element to distinguish actionable conduct from nonactionable conduct. The author contends that the "unwelcomeness" element demeans women in two ways: (1) it assumes the male perspective and presumes that the plaintiff appreciated the challenged conduct unless she proves otherwise; and (2) it allows the defense to engage in intrusive, irrelevant, and damaging inquiries as it attempts to refute the plaintiff's allegation that the challenged conduct was unwelcome.

The author argues for three reforms. First, courts should shift the burden of proving that the challenged …

Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science, William L. Anderson, Barry M. Parsons, Drummond Rennie

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the 1993 landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court articulated its position on the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court reasoned that federal judges should rely on the processes scientists use to identify unreliable research, including the process of peer review, to determine when scientific evidence should be inadmissible. In response, lawyers and their clients, seeking to rely on such evidence, have begun funding and publishing their own research with the primary intention of providing support to cases they are litigating. This Article examines the phenomenon of litigation-generated science, how it potentially undermines …

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, Edward J. Imwinkelried, D.H. Kaye

Washington Law Review

DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected. At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic …

Of Two Wrongs That Make A Right: Two Paradoxes Of The Evidence Law And Their Combined Economic Justification, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cowboy Prosecutors And Subpoenas For Incriminating Evidence: The Consequences And Correction Of Excess, Robert P. Mosteller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compelled Dna Testing In Rape Cases: Illustrating The Necessity Of An Exception To The Self-Incrimination Clause, Stephanie A. Parks

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

No abstract provided.

Conjunction And Aggregation, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

This Article begins with the puzzle of why the law avoids the issue of conjunctive probability. Mathematically inclined observers might, for example, employ the "product rule," multiplying the probabilities associated with several events or requirements in order to assess a combined likelihood, but judges and lawyers seem otherwise inclined. Courts and statutes might be explicit about the manner in which multiple requirements should be combined, but they are not. Thus, it is often unclear whether a factfinder should assess if condition A was more likely than not to be present - and then go on to see whether condition B …

Why Legal Scholars Get Daubert Wrong: A Contextualist Explanation Of Law's Epistemology, Alani Golanski

Alani Golanski

Daubert requires the court to make judgments about scientific evidence. But judges, like jurors, are lay persons in relation to such evidence. So Daubert has been criticized as requiring too much of the court, and such alternatives as blue ribbon panels have been proposed. This article shows that, notwithstanding any problems that Daubert itself might have, the Daubert scholarship is significantly hampered by the way legal scholars categorize knowledge. A "contextualist" (as opposed to "invariantist") theory of knowledge is both philosophically best, and makes sense of law's relation to science.

Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey, questions that court’s rationales for refusing to apply heightened scrutiny to psychiatric testimony about the retrieval of repressed memories. It also challenges the court’s use of a “personal observations” exception to the heightened scrutiny standard of Frye v. United States. It proposes that a better solution to problems of scientific and expert evidence would be to adopt a sliding scale that attends to the use to which the evidence is put and the degree to which it has been shown to be …

Why Miranda Does Not Prevent Confessions: Some Lessons From Albert Camus, Arthur Miller And Oprah Winfrey, 51 Syracuse L. Rev. 863 (2001), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …

Post-Trilogy Science In The Courtroom: What Are The Judges Doing?, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Evidence: 1999-2000 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States V. Hubbell: Encryption And The Discovery Of Documents, Greg Sergienko

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Five years ago, in a contribution to these pages, I suggested that the Supreme Court's oldest precedents and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution precluded the use of evidence produced under a grant of immunity against the producer, even though the material produced included documents that the producer had not been compelled to write. This implied that information concealed with a cryptographic key could not be used in a criminal prosecution against someone from whom the key had been obtained under a grant of immunity.

Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5

Strickler V. Greene: Preventing Injustice By Preserving The Coherent "Reasonable Probability" Standard To Resolve Issues Of Prejudice In Brady Violation Cases, Corinne M. Nastro

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.