Law Commons^™

Policing The Corporate Citizen: Arguments For Prosecuting Organizations, Daniel L. Cheyette

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dimond, Not Daubert: Reviving The Discretionary Standard Of Expert Admission In Alaska, Gregory R. Henrikson

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

William & Mary Law Review

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …

Is It Wrong To Sue For Rape?, Tom Lininger

Duke Law Journal

The title of this Article poses a rhetorical question. Of course it is not improper to site a rapist. The act of rape qualifies as a tort in all fifty states. Rape causes egregious injuries, both physical and psychological. The Supreme Court regards rape as the ultimate violation of personal autonomy. Other than homicide, no act is more plainly tortious. Yet the criminal justice system is surprisingly hostile to civil suits by rape survivors. Judges in criminal cases virtually always allow impeachment of accusers with evidence of civil suits against the alleged assailants or third parties. This Article surveys every …

How To Deal With Laboratory Reports Under Crawford V. Washington: A Question With No Good Answer, Cyrus P.W. Rieck

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Florida “Three Strikes Rule” For Medical Malpractice Claims: Using A Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard To Tighten The Strike Zone For Physician Licensure Revocation, Laura J. Spencer

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The Application Of The Exclusionary Rule To The Good Faith Exceptions In Light Of Hudson V.Michigan, Shenequa L. Grey

University of San Francisco Law Review

This Article examines other instances where the Supreme Court has historically held evidence inadmissible to determine whether such evidence should now be admissible in light of the Hudson v. Michigan analysis.

Why We Should Abandon The Balance Metaphor: A New Approach To Counterterrorism Policy, Stuart Macdonald

ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law

One of the central objectives in counterterrorism policy is commonly said to be to balance the competing demands of security and liberty.

Judicial Decision-Making, Social Science Evidence, And Equal Educational Opportunity: Uneasy Relations And Uncertain Futures, Michael Heise

Seattle University Law Review

The full extent of what the Court decided in Grutter and Parents Involved remains in some dispute. What is far more certain is that both cases continue to stir deeply held passions that help frame public and legal debates about the Court and its role in affirmative action and school desegregation disputes. Amid these increasingly raucous debates, this Article expressly side steps the many questions (and controversies) about what the Court decided in those cases and seeks to escape from the frequently politically charged and volatile context of governmental uses of race. This Article instead focuses on how the Court …

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 …

Does Congress Find Facts Or Construct Them - The Ascendance Of Politics Over Reliability, Perfected In Gonzales V. Carhart, Elizabeth De Coux

Cleveland State Law Review

The disparity between the rules of courts and the rules of Congress gives rise to this question: is the rigor-or lack of it-with which Congress evaluates the reliability of evidence an appropriate factor for courts to consider in deciding whether to defer to a congressional finding? In this Article, I consider whether Congress should adopt rules to fill the void. In Part I, I give a brief summary of the development and use of Congressional Committees. In Part II, I analyze several modern-day congressional hearings in an effort to examine the degree to which Congress and its committees require that …

It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, no uniform approach exists in determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction as a technique to impeach a witness. This lack of uniformity leads to significant consequences for the parties and poses a potential prejudicial effect on the truthful character of a witness. Furthermore, there is currently no bright-line judicial standard when evaluating the admissibility of certain prior convictions. Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Theus v. State provided a non-exhaustive set of factors for trial judges to consider, the court has yet to clarify particular aspects of how to properly apply Texas Rule …

The Individualization Fallacy In Forensic Science Evidence, Michael J. Saks, Jonathan J. Koehler

Vanderbilt Law Review

Forensic identification science involves two fundamental steps. The first step is to compare a questioned item of evidence to an exemplar from a known source and judge whether they appear so alike that they can be said to match. The second step is to assess the meaning of that reported match: What is the probability that the questioned and the known originated from the same source?

Different risks of error are present at each step. The risk of error in the first step is that a reported match between a questioned and a known sample might not really match. Even …

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.