Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interpreting The Phrase "Newly Discovered Evidence": May Previously Unavailable Exculpatory Testimony Serve As The Basis For A Motion For A New Trial Under Rule 33?, Mary Ellen Brennan
Interpreting The Phrase "Newly Discovered Evidence": May Previously Unavailable Exculpatory Testimony Serve As The Basis For A Motion For A New Trial Under Rule 33?, Mary Ellen Brennan
Fordham Law Review
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a federal court to grant a new trial to a criminal defendant if the “interest of justice so requires,” specifying as one potential basis the availability of “newly discovered evidence.” The federal circuit courts have disagreed as to whether postconviction testimony proffered by a codefendant who had remained silent at trial may serve as the basis for a Rule 33 motion grounded on newly discovered evidence. A majority of the federal circuits, including, most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have held that, while a codefendant’s …
Assessing Fourth Amendment Challenges To Dna Extraction Statutes After Samson V. California, Charles J. Nerko
Assessing Fourth Amendment Challenges To Dna Extraction Statutes After Samson V. California, Charles J. Nerko
Fordham Law Review
DNA plays an indespensable role in modern law enforcement, and courts uniformly find that DNA extraction statutes targeting criminals satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Courts differ on which Fourth Amendment test--totality of the circumstances or special needs--ought to be employed in this context. This Note concludes the courts should apply Samson v. California's less stringent totality of the circumstances test to analyze DNA extraction statutes in order to maintain the integrity of the special needs test.