Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Courts' Evolving Roles In Daubert Decisions, Susan J. Becker
Courts' Evolving Roles In Daubert Decisions, Susan J. Becker
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
In Daubert, the Supreme Court interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to permit an arguably more-relaxed standard for the admission of expert scientific evidence than previously allowed under the popular Frye test.
Rhetoric, Evidence, And Bar Agency Restrictions On Speech By Attorneys, Lloyd B. Snyder
Rhetoric, Evidence, And Bar Agency Restrictions On Speech By Attorneys, Lloyd B. Snyder
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
There are two problems with permitting litigation about attorney speech to proceed without requiring bar disciplinary agencies to present empirical data or other evidence to support claims that restrictions on attorney speech are necessary. First, the history of bar association restrictions on attorney speech should make us skeptical that the bar rules are based on lofty ideals about protection of the public. The restrictions began as rules promulgated by elite corporate lawyers whose effect was to limit the activities of their less affluent brethren who were representing criminal defendants and other impoverished clients. The purpose of the rules was to …
Public Opinion Polls And Surveys As Evidence: Suggestions For Resolving Confusing And Conflicting Standards Governing Weight And Admissibility , Susan J. Becker
Public Opinion Polls And Surveys As Evidence: Suggestions For Resolving Confusing And Conflicting Standards Governing Weight And Admissibility , Susan J. Becker
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Section I provides a basic overview of public opinion polls, beginning with a brief explanation of the current popularity of this type of data, followed by a discussion of the courts' historic treatment of survey evidence and a review of modern standards which courts use in evaluating the weight and admissibility of polling data. The exact "rules" governing the conduct of litigants and their respective counsel in commissioning and executing a survey and those governing the courts' refereeing of evidentiary disputes over polling data remain unclear. These unresolved issues are discussed in Section II. Suggestions for moving toward a more …
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court in Leon v. United States held that where law enforcement officials execute a search warrant issued in violation of the dictates of the fourth amendment but act in the "good faith," "objectively-reasonable" belief that the warrant was constitutionally valid, the fruits of the search should not (with a few exceptions) be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. On June 8, 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court, after calling for and receiving briefs and arguments on the same issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified, concluded, for reasons of …
Consular Officer's Amenability As Witness, Stephen J. Werber
Consular Officer's Amenability As Witness, Stephen J. Werber
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
The purpose of this paper is to examine various treaty provisions in an effort to ascertain the manner in which a consular officer's obligation to testify is set forth, the immunities given such an officer and some of the problems raised by both the obligation and the immunities.