Law Commons^™

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 …

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Criticism of the hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence has reached a fever pitch in recent years. With scholars calling for the abrogation of the entire hearsay regime or of individual exceptions within it and the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules exploring hearsay amendments, the time for genuine hearsay soul-searching may be at hand. This Article suggests that aggressive proposals to scuttle existing doctrine entirely in favor of alternative approaches to hearsay are overly broad, rejecting the benefits of significant portions of existing doctrine that are functioning well and threatening costly consequences that could make matters worse …

Appendix: Conjunction-Problem V. Non-Conjunction-Problem Jurisdictions, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober

William & Mary Law Review Online

This appendix presents the relevant data from our survey of jury instructions in support of the article in the print edition of the William & Mary Law Review. The Conjunction Problem and the Logic of Jury Findings (59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 619, 673-87 (2017))

The Conjunction Problem And The Logic Of Jury Findings, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober

William & Mary Law Review

For several decades, evidence theorists have puzzled over the following paradox, known as the “conjunction paradox” or “conjunction problem.” Probability theory appears to tell us that the probability of a conjunctive claim is the product resulting from multiplying the probabilities of its separate conjuncts. In a three element negligence case (breach of duty, causation, damages), a plaintiff who proves each element to a 0.6 probability will have proven her overall claim to a very low probability of 0.216. Either the plaintiff wins the verdict based on this low probability (if the jury focuses on elements), or the plaintiff loses despite …

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

William & Mary Law Review

This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that …

Does Removing The Force Element Matter?: An Empirical Comparison Of Rape Statistics In Massachusetts And Colorado, Peter Landsman

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Hear Me Now: The Admission Of Expert Testimony On Battered Women's Syndrome—An Evidentiary Approach, Matthew Fine

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Restyled Federal Rules Of Evidence, Davison M. Douglas, Sidney A. Fitzwater, Daniel J. Capra, Robert A. Hinkle, Joseph Kimble, Joan N. Ericksen, Marilyn L. Huff, Reena A. Raggi, Geraldine Soat Brown, Edward H. Cooper, Kenneth S. Broun, Harris L. Hartz, Katharine Traylor Schaffzin, Roger C. Park, Deborah J. Merritt, Andrew D. Hurwitz, W. Jeremy Counseller, Paula Hannaford-Agor

William & Mary Law Review

A lightly edited transcript of the Symposium held at the William & Mary School of Law on October 28, 2011.

A Disparate Impact On Female Veterans: The Unintended Consequences Of Veterans Affairs Regulations Governing The Burdens Of Proof For Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Due To Combat And Military Sexual Trauma, Jennifer C. Schingle

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

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 …

Here Is The Church, Now Who Owns The Steeple? A Revised Approach To Church Property Disputes, Adam E. Lyons

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article reviews two approaches to the implementation of neutral principles of law--the constitutionally permissible method of resolving property disputes between bodies in a religious hierarchy. Though both approaches may be valid, the formal title approach, as implemented by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Presbytery of Beaver- Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, leads to problems in application that have been rectified by that court's more recent decision in In re Church of St. James the Less. It is the contention of this Article that future courts and practitioners facing church property disputes can draw guidance from the St. James decision …

Is Silence Sacred? The Vulnerability Of Griffin V. California In A Terrorist World, Lissa Griffin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"So I Says To "The Guy,' I Says...": The Constitutionality Of Neutral Pronoun Redaction In Multidefendant Criminal Trials, Bryan M. Shay

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Shock To The System: Analyzing The Conflict Among Courts Over Whether And When Excited Utterances May Follow Subsequent Startling Occurrences In Rape And Sexual Assault Cases, Colin Miller

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Blow To Domestic Violence Victims: Applying The "Testimonial Statements" Test In Crawford V. Washington, Melissa Moody

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Aedpa Deference And The Undeveloped State Factual Record: Monroe V. Angelone And New Evidence, Rachel E. Wheeler

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suppressing The Incriminating Statements Of Foreigners, John Quigley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Meaning, Intention, And The Hearsay Rule, Paul F. Kirgis

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compelled Dna Testing In Rape Cases: Illustrating The Necessity Of An Exception To The Self-Incrimination Clause, Stephanie A. Parks

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Whether The Federal Rules Of Evidence Should Be Conceived As A Perpetual Index Code: Blindness Is Worse Than Myopia, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Myopia: The Failure To See The Federal Rules Of Evidence As A Codification Of The Common Law, Glen Weissenberger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Elusive Identity Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Glen Weissenberger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conflicts Of Interest In Scientific Expert Testimony, Mark R. Patterson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Old Chief, Crowder, And Trials By Stipulation, David Robinson Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Robinson argues that the meaning of "unfair prejudice" and the scope of trial judges' discretion in employing Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is still uncertain following the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Old Chief and its vacation and remand of United States v. Crowder and United States v. Davis. Robinson evaluates the evidentiary implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions by discussing each case and analyzing the implications of the three cases read together.

Professor Robinson examines the possible effects of stipulations and admissions on the Rule 403 balancing test …

Evidence In A Difference Voice: Some Thoughts On Professor Jonakait's Critique Of A Feminist Approach, Aviva Orenstein

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Prior Bad Acts And Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jason L. Mccandless

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This note presents a Due Process analysis of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. These rules, which took effect in July 1995, overturn the exclusionary requirements of Rule 404 exclusively in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation. The new rules allow similar crimes to serve as evidence for purposes other than those stated in Rule 404(b). Now, federal prosecutors may offer evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged sexual misconduct to demonstrate that the defendant committed the sex offense for which he currently is being charged. Rules 413 and 414 reevaluate the historic concern that evidence of prior acts …

Accomplices' Confessions And The Confrontation Clause, Welsh S. White

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The admissibility of an accomplice's confession against a criminal defendant has long been a subject of concern in Anglo-American law. The Supreme Court has held that accomplices' confessions to the police are presumptively unreliable under the Confrontation Clause, without clearly expressing what facts would lend to the reliability of such statements. However, Professor White argues that in Williamson v. United States, the Court adopted an empirical framework that will make such confessions more likely to be admissible against an accused.

In this Article, Professor White first explores the traditional skepticism towards accomplices' confessions and explains the nature of the current …

The Defendant's Right To Independent Analysis Of The Breathalyzer Ampoule: The Probable Virginia Response, Anita L. Zuckerman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rules Of Evidence In Preliminary Hearings In Virginia, Charles E. Friend

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence - Narcotics - Quantity Required For Conviction Of Possession. Robbs V. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 153, 176 S.E.2d 429 (1970), Douglas S. Wood

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.