Law Commons^™

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 …

A Proposal To Amend Rule 407 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Conform With The Underlying Relevancy Rationale For The Rule In Negligence And Strict Liability Actions, Ralph Ruebner, Eugene Goryunov

ExpressO

The current version of FRE 407 prevents the use of evidence of remedial measures taken after an event that caused an injury or harm in order to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or strict product liability. Our proposal is that the language of Rule 407 be amended to preclude the admissibility of remedial measures which are taken both before and after an injury. This change will implement the relevancy rationale for the rule.

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 …

Child Statements In A Post-Crawford World: What The United States Supreme Court Failed To Consider With Regard To Child Victims And Witnesses, Allie Phillips

ExpressO

With the issuance of Crawford v. Washington, 514 U.S. 36 (2004), by the United States Supreme Court on March 8, 2004, wide spread confusion and concern swept through the nation’s prosecutorial community. The new rule announced in Crawford created too many questions and provided few answers by the Court. In particular, anxiety arose from the child protection community in regard to one primary issue: Are forensic interviews of child victims and witnesses, and other statements made by children, considered “testimonial statements” according to Crawford, thus requiring the child to take the witness stand? The Court further confused the new rule …

Daubert And The Disappearing Jury Trial, Allan Kanner

ExpressO

Since being decided by the Supreme Court in 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals has earned its place as one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied decisions in modern history. Meant to liberalize the standards for admissions of proof, the decision has had the opposite effect. The gatekeeper powers given to judges via Daubert, coupled with the internal and external incentives to prevent jury trials, has placed our entire civil justice system at risk.

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Turning A Blind Eye To Misleading Scientific Testimony: Failure Of Procedural Safeguards In A Capital Case, William C. Thompson

ExpressO

In September 1999, Robin Lovitt was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a pool hall manager in Arlington, Virginia. The DNA evidence that was a key part of the government’s case was presented in a misleading and unfair manner. In this case study, we first examine the way in which DNA evidence was misused. We then discuss the failure of the legal system at all levels to recognize and remedy this problem. Our goal is to explain how a system that supposedly leaves no stone unturned in capital trials managed to miss or ignore a crucial problem …

21st Century Pillow-Talk: Applicability Of The Marital Communications Privilege To Electronic Mail, Mikah K. Story

ExpressO

This article is the first to explore whether the marital communications privilege, which protects from disclosure private communications between spouses, should attach to communication sent via Web-based email. Traditionally, the privilege does not attach where a third party learns, either intentionally or inadvertently, the content of an otherwise private communication. In the world of Web-based email, disclosure to a third party is necessary in order for successful communication to occur. Writers of Web-based email draft a message and store it on a third-party Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) server until the recipient reads the message. Even after the email has been …

Conversational Standing: A New Approach To An Old Privacy Problem, Christopher M. Drake

ExpressO

American society has long considered certain conversations private amongst the participants in those conversations. In other words, when two or more people are conversing in a variety of settings and through a variety of media, there are times when all parties to the conversation can reasonably expect freedom from improper government intrusion, whether through direct participation or secret monitoring. This shared expectation of privacy has been slow to gain judicial recognition. Courts have indicated that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution only protects certain elements of the conversation, such as where and how it takes place, but that …

Section 7525’S Last Gasps: The Tax Practitioner Privilege And The Selective Waiver Doctrine, Amandeep S. Grewal

ExpressO

Congress blundered badly by defining the Federally Authorized Tax Practitioner privilege by cross-reference to the attorney-client privilege. The relationship between a client and a FATP is wholly different from that between a client and an attorney, and the application of attorney-client principles to the FATP privilege has given rise to confused (and sometimes contradictory) judicial opinions.

This paper attempts to stem the confusion with respect to one aspect of the FATP privilege. The proper application of the selective waiver doctrine to the FATP privilege remains an open question, though courts seem poised to reject it. They have rejected it numerous …

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth C. Burch

ExpressO

No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud class actions. Instead, courts have tried in vain to fashion common-law deceit and misrepresentation remedies to fit open-market fraud. The result is a relatively ineffective system with a hallmark feature: unpredictable damage awards. This poses a significant fraud deterrence problem from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint.

In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify open-market damage principles and to facilitate earlier dismissal of cases without compensable economic losses. Instead, in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, it further confused the damage issue by (1) perpetuating the …

Getting Control Of Waiver Of Privilege In The Federal Courts : A Proposal For A Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Daniel J. Capra

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Are Patented Research Tools Still Valuable? Use, Intent, And A Rebuttable Presumption: A Proposed Modification For Analyzing The Exemption From Patent Infringement Under 35 Usc 271 (E) (1), Vihar R. Patel

ExpressO

Briefly, the article proposes to have courts focus on the nature of an individual's use and apply the "UART" (Use As a Research Tool) factors to determine if a patented invention is being used as a research tool. If a patented invention is being used as a research tool, then the court is to presume that the activities are not covered by the FDA exemption. However, this presumption can be rebutted by a researcher's demonstration of the research tool owner using his patent to block efforts to develop a competing product. If the presumption is rebutted, then the court applies …

Forgetting Freud: The Courts' Fear Of The Subconscious In Date Rape (And Other) Criminal Cases, Andrew E. Taslitz

ExpressO

Courts too often show a reluctance to learn the lessons taught by social science in criminal cases, especially where subconcious processes are involved. The subconscious is seen as rarely relevant and, in the unusual cases where it is relevant, it is viewed as a disease commandeering the conscious mind and thus helping to exculpate the accused. Drawing on the example of forensic linguistics in date rape cases as illustrative of a broader phenomenon, this article argues that the courts' misuse of social science stems from fear and misunderstanding of the workings of the subconscious mind. Accordingly, the piece contrasts the …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

A Default-Logic Paradigm For Legal Reasoning And Factfinding, Vern R. Walker

ExpressO

Unlike research in linguistics and artificial intelligence, legal research has not used advances in logical theory very effectively. This article uses default logic to develop a paradigm for analyzing all aspects of legal reasoning, including factfinding. The article provides a formal model that integrates legal rules and policies with the evaluation of both expert and non-expert evidence – whether the reasoning occurs in courts or administrative agencies, and whether in domestic, foreign, or international legal systems. This paradigm can standardize the representation of legal reasoning, guide empirical research into the dynamics of such reasoning, and put the representations and research …

Judicial Anarchy: The Admission Of Convictions To Impeach -State Supreme Court Interpretive Standards, 1990-2004, Dannye Holley

ExpressO

This is the second and sequential national study of an important evidence and criminal justice issue - the admission of convictions to impeach. It is a longitudinal national study of how state supreme courts have recently, over the last decade and one-half, evaluated this issue. The longitudinal study period of 1990-2004 mirros the study period of state rules on this issue which was undertaken in the first article. The study period was chosen for an explicit substantive rationale that was explained in that article and is repeated in this article. Because both articles are decade and one-half studies they will …

Zoning And Eminent Domain Under The New Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Recently the Supreme Court has made it clearer that minimum scrutiny is a factual analysis. Whether in any government action there is a rational relation to a legitimate interest is a matter of determining whether there is a policy maintaining important facts. This has come about in the Court’s emerging emphasis on developing fact-based criteria for determining government purpose. Thus, those who want to affect zoning and eminent domain outcomes should look to what the Court sees as important facts, and whether government action is maintaining those facts with its proposed land use or eminent domain action.

To Catch A Sex Thief: The Burden Of Performance In Rape And Sexual Assault Trials, Corey Rayburn Yung

ExpressO

Despite decades of efforts to reform American rape law, prosecution and conviction rates remain low compared to similar crimes. While activists led legislatures to adopt important statutory changes for rape and sexual assault, only modest effects in the levels of sexual violence have been observed. Nonetheless, reform-minded scholars continue to focus on statutory and rule tinkering as a means to quell sexual violence.

This article argues against the commonly-held belief that the crucial factors in determining the outcome of rape trials are substantive and procedural in nature. Rather, the issues of performance, representation, and language often pre-determine the outcomes of …

Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

By now we all are familiar with the litany of cases which refused to find elevated scrutiny for so-called “affirmative” or “social” rights such as education, welfare or housing: Lindsey v. Normet, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Dandridge v. Williams, DeShaney v. Winnebago County. There didn’t seem to be anything in minimum scrutiny which could protect such facts as education or housing, from government action. However, unobtrusively and over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified and articulated one aspect of minimum scrutiny which holds promise for vindicating facts. You will recall that under minimum scrutiny government’s action is …

Using Capture Theory And Chronology In Eminent Domain Proceedings, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Capture theory--in which private purpose is substituted for government purpose--sheds light on a technique which is coming into greater use post-Kelo v. New London. That case affirmed that eminent domain use need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Capture theory focuses litigators' attention on "government purpose." That is a question of fact for the trier of fact. This article shows how to use civil discovery in order to show the Court that private purpose has been substituted for government purpose. If it has, the eminent domain use fails, because the use does not meet minimum scrutiny. This …

The Case For Selective Abolition Of The Rules Of Evidence, David Crump

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

He Said-She Said: On Credibility And The New Reason, Nancy Rourke

ExpressO

The traditional wisdom in the field of evidence holds that, if there is a direct contradiction in the testimony of two witnesses, one of them must be lying. The jury is to discover which version is more credible. The traditional wisdom is wrong. This article uses an actual criminal case to establish that a direct contradiction in testimony can arise from another source - a fundamental difference of conceptual frame. In this case, both witnesses were telling the truth as they knew it, but were talking past one another. Words that were 100% true in the victim's conceptual frame were …

Believing In Products Liability: Reflections On Daubert, Doctrinal Evolution, And David Owen's "Products Liability Law", Richard L. Cupp

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

The Overlapping Magisteria Of Law And Science: When Litigation And Science Collide, William G. Childs

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals transformed courts’ evaluation of expert testimony. Many courts, applying Daubert, focus extensively on whether the purported expert’s methodology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This focus on peer review results in two unintended consequences that have triggered criticism: litigation-driven scholarship and litigants taking discovery into the peer review process. Critics contend that litigation-driven scholarship is irredeemably biased and that peer review discovery is too often an effort to intimidate scholars from speaking on subjects of public concern.

In this Article, I explore these phenomena and the criticisms of …

Attorney-Client Privilege In The Public Sector: A Survey Of Government Attorneys, Nancy Leong

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Flipping A Coin: A Solution For The Inherent Unreliability Of Eyewitness Identification Testimony, Noah A. Clements

ExpressO

By most accounts, mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. As DNA evidence frees ever more people wrongfully convicted on the basis of mistaken identification testimony, it is worth asking: “What about those cases where there is no DNA evidence?” Study after study shows that eyewitness identifications are unreliable. Courts pay lip service to the concept of reliability, but even after identifications are tainted by suggestion, very few courts actually exclude this tainted identification testimony.

And identifications are powerful. Jurors tend to believe identification testimony more than any other kind. And judges are people …

Law In The Digital Age: How Visual Communication Technologies Are Transforming The Practice, Theory, And Teaching Of Law, Richard K. Sherwin, Neal Feigenson, Christina Spiesel

ExpressO

Law today has entered the digital age. The way law is practiced – how truth and justice are represented and assessed – is increasingly dependent on what appears on electronic screens in courtrooms, law offices, government agencies, and elsewhere. Practicing lawyers know this and are rapidly adapting to the new era of digital visual rhetoric. Legal theory and education, however, have yet to catch up. This article is the first systematic effort to theorize law's transformation by new visual and multimedia technologies and to set out the changes in legal pedagogy that are needed to prepare law students for practice …

Dangerousness And Expertise Redux, Christopher Slobogin

ExpressO

Civil commitment, confinement under sexual predator laws, and many capital and noncapital sentences depend upon proof of a propensity toward violence. This article discusses the current state of prediction science, in particular the advantages and disadvantages of clinical and actuarial prediction, and then analyzes how the rules of evidence should be interpreted in deciding whether opinions about propensity should be admissible. It concludes that dangerousness predictions that are not based on empirically-derived probability estimates should be excluded from the courtroom unless the defense decides otherwise. This conclusion is not bottomed on the usual concern courts and commentators raise about expert …