Law Commons^™

The 2007 Rejection Of Anonymous Language Analysis By The Swedish Migration Court Of Appeal: A Precedent?, Gregor Noll

Gregor Noll

No abstract provided.

Doubting What The Elders Have To Say, David Milward

Dr. David Milward

The Supreme Court of Canada has articulated several legal principles that mandate the flexible and generous treatment of Aboriginal oral history evidence in support of Aboriginal rights claims. Lower courts, however, continue to devalue such evidence, often displaying explicit disregard for the legal principles, in order to defeat rights claims and subordinate Aboriginal interests to state sovereignty. This has no rational basis, since it is now clearly established that documentary historical evidence does not have any innate superiority over oral history evidence when it comes to ascertaining what happened in the past. This article proposes several solutions. These include educating …

Strategic Enforcement, Alex Stein, Margaret H. Lemos

Alex Stein

Doctrine and scholarship recognize two basic models of enforcing the law: the comprehensive model, under which law-enforcers try to apprehend and punish every violator within the bounds of feasibility; and the randomized model, under which law enforcers economize their efforts by apprehending a small number of violators and heightening their penalties so as to make violations unattractive. This Article supplements this list of options by developing a strategic model of law enforcement. Under this model, law enforcers concentrate their effort on the worst, or most rampant, violators at a given point in time while leaving all others unpunished. This enforcement …

“Mystic Infallibility” And “Fancy Devices”: A Conceptual Analysis Of The Application Of The Frye Test, John F. Johnson Iii

John F Johnson III

The Frye test stood as the first widely used test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence and stood as the majority test until the Supreme Court introduced the Daubert test in 1993. Despite taking a backseat, seventeen jurisdictions, including California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, continue to apply the Frye test. The Frye test holds that a when a party provides novel scientific evidence, that party must demonstrate the proffered evidence relies on principles, methodologies, and devices that are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Commentators frequently discuss the test’s general acceptance requirement, but ignore the preliminary issue …

Evidence, Joseph B. Harvey

Cal Law Trends and Developments

The principal developments and trends to be noted in the law of evidence appeared this year in appellate Court decisions. The legislative changes were few. Only one legislative change seems likely to be of any significance and will be felt primarily by drivers accused of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor. For lawyers, the notable developments appear in the case law; it is likely that the courts will remain the primary arena for the development of the law of evidence for some time to come.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Virginia B. Theisen, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many cases and bills those that have the most significant practical impact on the daily practice of criminal law in the Commonwealth. Due to space constraints, the authors have stayed away from discussing settled principles, with a focus on the "take away" for a particular case.

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment’S Protections Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order …

Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Note analyzes the Young court’s opinion and the potential consequences of the majority’s cursory rejection of the government’s inevitable discovery argument. This Note also reconciles the differing applications of the inevitable discovery doctrine by the Young majority and dissent and highlights the speculative nature of employing the inevitable discovery doctrine based on the facts of Young. Part I of this Note presents the background of the case and the historical development of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, focusing on the inevitable discovery doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. Part II outlines the Young decision and analyzes …

Reinforcing The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad After Blocking Statutes, Data Privacy Directives, And Aerospatiale, Brian Friederich

San Diego International Law Journal

There has always been tension between European countries and the United States on the topic of evidence gathering. Much of that tension stems from the inherent differences between common and civil policies and methods. Until the Hague Convention, the process for obtaining evidence abroad was cumbersome and unreliable. The Hague Convention sought to change that by providing signatory countries more effective methods of cooperating with each other in international litigation. However, the Hague Convention has not been able to achieve its purpose, at least not in the United States. U.S. courts have interpreted the Hague Convention as optional, meaning it …

The Admissibility Of Electronic Business Records, Ken Chasse

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The business record provisions of the Evidence Acts determine a record’s admissibility by evidence of its history, which must be the product of “the usual and ordinary course of business” (or comparable “business activity” wording). The electronic record provisions determine a record’s admissibility by the, “integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored.” The difference is, records management (RM) based on “paper records concepts” versus “electronic records systems concepts.” The former is subjective — each business determines its own “usual and ordinary course of business”; the latter, objective — in accor- dance with authoritative standards …

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan

Faculty Publications and Presentations

An inquiry that seeks truth by accepting only natural answers excludes the possibility of the sacred or supernatural, building a wall that forecloses a complete exploration for the truth it seeks. Without analysis, critics dismiss sources presenting supernatural explanations, and those who believe sacred works have no factual foundation accept without investigation any popular theory that appears attractive. The rules of evidence expressly seek truth, wherever it lies. Noted legal scholar Simon Greenleaf used evidentiary principles to demonstrate the factual credibility of the Gospels in his Testimony of the Evangelists. This Article examines Greenleaf’s analysis, applying current rules of evidence …

Seeing Is Believing; Or Is It? An Emperical Study Of Computer Simulations As Evidence., Robert B. Bennett, Jordan H. Leibman, Richard Fetter

Robert B. Bennett

Relying on the old adage, "seeing is believing," we conclude that the jury may give undue weight to an animated reconstruction of the accident .... It would be an inordinately difficult task for the plaintiff to counter, by cross-examination or otherwise, the impression that a computerized depiction of the accident is necessarily more accurate than an oral description of how the accident occurred. Because the expert's conclusion would be graphically depicted in a moving and animated form, the viewing of the computer simulation might more readily lead the jury to accept the data and premises underlying the defendant's expert's opinion... …

Some Questions About Interpretation, Ecto-Ambiguity, Tradition, And Conflicts Of Law And Fact, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

Questions raised by the interpretation of a conrtract clause with the aid of the following devices: Recognizing a more restrictive "traditional" understanding; Finding contract ambiguity between actual wording and traditional understanding; Resolving its intent by the canon contra proferentem; Accepting the finding of intent as controlling foreign state law

Voluntary Client Testimony As A Privilege Waiver: Is Ohio's Law Caught In A Time Warp?, David B. Alden, Matthew P. Silversten

David B. Alden

Ohio’s attorney-client privilege statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.02(A), has been interpreted to provide for a broad waiver of the attorney-client privilege whenever the client testifies voluntarily, including when the client’s testimony does not disclose the substance of the otherwise privileged communications. Finding a privilege waiver under these circumstances is virtually unique to Ohio. This article (1) traces the origins of this rule back to Ohio’s first code of civil procedure, which was enacted in 1853, (2) identifies the long-forgotten reasons that prompted its adoption; (3) analyzes decisions that have applied it from the mid-nineteenth century through today; (4) assesses …

Live Hearings And Paper Trials, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing or trial, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing live testimony than if the judges were to review …

When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

Fact-finding at the international tribunals is not as precise as we think. Nancy Combs, Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, explores this in her new book 'Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions'.

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

How Less Is More: The Unraveling Of The Inextricable Intertwinement Doctrine Under United States V. Gorman, Jaime L. Padgett

Seventh Circuit Review

In July 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explicitly abolished the long-standing doctrine of inextricable intertwinement as a basis of admissibility for other bad acts evidence. The court held in United States v. Gorman that the doctrine had "become overused, vague, and quite unhelpful" and as such, "has outlived its usefulness." The court eliminated this basis of admissibility in favor of the exclusive use of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Although the two bases have different origins and initial purposes, by virtue of confusion and realities of the judicial system, the bases have come to …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted by Congress, adopted by 34 states and has survived for over 35 years. How did this happen? What is …

“Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided “Not Hearsay” Terminology.”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

Deal Or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants To Present Evidence That They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

Federal Rule of Evidence 410 deems inadmissible statements made during plea discussions when offered “against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in plea discussions….” Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Mezzanatto, however, prosecutors can, and often do, force defendants to waive the protections of this Rule to get to the plea bargaining table. Conversely, courts categorically have found that defendants cannot present evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains, despite the plain language of the Rule not precluding the admission of such evidence. This article addresses the question of whether courts can …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

Fact-Finding Without Facts, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

Saying “I’M Sorry” Is Not So Simple: Embracing The Complexity Of The Apology With A New Evidentiary Rule, Amy Poyer

Amy Poyer

Apologies are everywhere. In day-to-day life, when a person apologizes, they must deal with a myriad of consequences for that apology. These may include vulnerability to the victim, embarrassment, a bruised ago, or even rejection of the apology by the victim. However, when the wrong one apologizes for turns into a lawsuit, the one apologizing has an additional penalty. Piled on to the emotional consequences that accompany any apology, a potential defendant must also worry about his apology’s use against him in court to prove that he is liable. Recently, a debate has developed over whether or not the law …

Designing Privilege For The Tax Profession: Comparing I.R.C. § 7525 With New Zealand’S Non-Disclosure Right, Keith A. Kendall

Keith A Kendall

The United States and New Zealand are the only two common law jurisdictions to have successfully extended attorney-client privilege to non-lawyer tax advisers. While aimed at the common goal of such an extension, the two statutory rules implement very different means to achieve this purpose; the United States importing the common law into statute, with New Zealand creating a completely separate statutory right. An examination of the context and legislative histories of the respective statutory provisions finds that these forms are consistent with the legislative approach to evidentiary privileges in each jurisdiction and is, therefore, appropriate in each case. Other …