Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bad Science Begets Bad Convictions: The Need For Postconviction Relief In The Wake Of Discredited Forensics, Jessica Gabel Cino
Bad Science Begets Bad Convictions: The Need For Postconviction Relief In The Wake Of Discredited Forensics, Jessica Gabel Cino
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Death Of Fairness: Texas's Future Dangerousness Revisited, Ana M. Otero
The Death Of Fairness: Texas's Future Dangerousness Revisited, Ana M. Otero
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
Colorado's Undemanding Notice Requirement: Pro Se Defendants And Forensic Technician Testimony, Sarah M. Morris, Lauren L. Fontana
Colorado's Undemanding Notice Requirement: Pro Se Defendants And Forensic Technician Testimony, Sarah M. Morris, Lauren L. Fontana
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
Admissibility Compared: The Reception Of Incriminating Expert Evidence (I.E., Forensic Science) In Four Adversarial Jurisdictions, Gary Edmond, Simon Cole, Emma Cunliffe, Andrew Roberts
Admissibility Compared: The Reception Of Incriminating Expert Evidence (I.E., Forensic Science) In Four Adversarial Jurisdictions, Gary Edmond, Simon Cole, Emma Cunliffe, Andrew Roberts
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Gordian Knot Of The Treatment Of Secondhand Facts Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 703 Governing The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions: Another Conflict Between Logic And Law, Edward J. Imwinkelried
The Gordian Knot Of The Treatment Of Secondhand Facts Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 703 Governing The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions: Another Conflict Between Logic And Law, Edward J. Imwinkelried
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confronting The Backdoor Admission Of Testimonial Statements Against An Accused: The Danger Of Expert Reliance On Inadmissible Information, Sarah E. Stout
Confronting The Backdoor Admission Of Testimonial Statements Against An Accused: The Danger Of Expert Reliance On Inadmissible Information, Sarah E. Stout
University of Denver Criminal Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Seattle University Law Review
There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer
Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer
South Carolina Law Review
No abstract provided.
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
William & Mary Law Review
Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …
Addressing Racial Bias In The Jury System: Another Failed Attempt?, Alisa Micu
Addressing Racial Bias In The Jury System: Another Failed Attempt?, Alisa Micu
Georgia State University Law Review
This Note explores the majority opinion and the dissents in Pena- Rodriguez regarding whether the Supreme Court has adequately provided guidance for lower courts to follow the ruling, which now allows exceptions for evidence of racial bias to Rule 606(b). Part I discusses the history of the no-impeachment rule, its foundation in the Sixth Amendment, and its constitutional requirements. Further, Part I discusses the different approaches that courts have taken in adopting Rule 606(b) and what problems courts have identified in its application. Part II analyzes whether the Supreme Court, as a practical matter, has provided a workable procedural scheme …
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …