Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Credibility: A Fair Subject For Expert Testimony?, Anne Poulin Jul 2007

Credibility: A Fair Subject For Expert Testimony?, Anne Poulin

Working Paper Series

This article explores the ways in which experts can assist the jury to assess the credibility of other witnesses and suggests analytical approaches to such expert testimony. The article argues that the courts should be more receptive to expert testimony bearing on witness credibility and engage in a more nuanced consideration of the role played by proffered expert testimony and how the role of the evidence affects its admissibility. Doing so should lead the courts to embrace the promise of the modern rules of evidence and permit experts to assist juries as they assess credibility.


Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola Jul 2007

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …


Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione Feb 2007

Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione

ExpressO

This article critically analyzes Samson v. California and Hudson v. Michigan, which were the Roberts Court's first major Fourth Amendment decisions. In Samson, the Court upheld a California law allowing government officials to search parolees without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In Hudson, to the surprise of almost every observer, the Court held that knock-and-announce violations do not carry with them a remedy of exclusion. What was most notable about Hudson was not only that it rejected what every state and every federal court, save one, believed to be the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but that it called into question …


Prosecutors: Factors To Aid Your Filing Decisions With Respect To Fatal Traffic Collisions, Kimberly Rebecca Bird Jan 2007

Prosecutors: Factors To Aid Your Filing Decisions With Respect To Fatal Traffic Collisions, Kimberly Rebecca Bird

ExpressO

As you may know, on a fairly regular basis, prosecutors are faced with filing decisions with respect to fatal traffic collisions. Many of them, of course, do not involve criminal negligence and are not prosecuted as crimes. Sometimes, on the other hand, the circumstances are egregious and the decision to be made is whether to file a case as a vehicular manslaughter or as a murder, on an implied malice theory. There are a finite number of California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases (beginning with People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290) that have addressed the sufficiency of …


Prosecuting Government Fraud Despite The Csi Effect: Getting The Jury To Follow The Money, James B. Johnston Dec 2006

Prosecuting Government Fraud Despite The Csi Effect: Getting The Jury To Follow The Money, James B. Johnston

James B Johnston

Prosecutors have complained that jurors who think they are educated in crime scene investigations by watching T.V. have made it difficult to prove cases even when the charge is white collar in nature because they expect the forensics the see on the show "CSI". In regard to government fraud cases, the prosecutor simply must get the jury to follow the fraud linked money. This article notes that those in law enforcement must give the jury what they want to get them to follow the money especially when the case concerns government fraud and corruption.