Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Selected Works (23)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (3)
- Roger Williams University (3)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- William & Mary Law School (3)
-
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Pace University (2)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (2)
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- City University of New York (CUNY) (1)
- Florida A&M University College of Law (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (1)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (1)
- University of Connecticut (1)
- University of Denver (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of South Carolina (1)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (17)
- Criminal Law (9)
- Child abuse (7)
- Child sexual abuse (7)
- Child witness (7)
-
- Self Incrimination (5)
- Admissibility (4)
- Child testimony (4)
- Criminal Evidence (4)
- Bias (3)
- Disclosure (3)
- Discovery (3)
- Exclusionary Rule (3)
- Hearsay (3)
- Attributional Biases (2)
- Brady (2)
- Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)) (2)
- Communications Law (2)
- Confessions (2)
- Criminal (2)
- Criminal law (2)
- Federal (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law (2)
- Minor transgression (2)
- Miranda Rule (2)
- Photographs (2)
- Public Prosecutors (2)
- Publicity (2)
- Putative confession (2)
- Publication
-
- Thomas D. Lyon (7)
- Fredric I. Lederer (5)
- Paul Marcus (5)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
-
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (2)
- Owen Jones (2)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (2)
- Adam M. Gershowitz (1)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (1)
- Capstones (1)
- Criminal Law Practitioner (1)
- Dissertations and Honors Papers (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Indiana Law Journal (1)
- James G. Dwyer (1)
- Journal Publications (1)
- Maryland Law Review Online (1)
- Mitchell Hamline Law Review (1)
- Peter A. Alces (1)
- School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events (1)
- South Carolina Law Review (1)
- Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Touro Law Review (1)
- Tsion Chudnovsky, JD (1)
- University of Miami Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice (1)
- William & Mary Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 53 of 53
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Beyond The Witness: Bringing A Process Perspective To Modern Evidence Law, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn
Beyond The Witness: Bringing A Process Perspective To Modern Evidence Law, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn
Faculty Scholarship
The focal point of the modern trial is the witness. Witnesses are the source of observations, lay and expert opinions, authentication, as well as the conduit through which documentary, physical, and scientific evidence is introduced. Evidence law therefore unsurprisingly concentrates on – or perhaps obsesses over – witnesses. In this Article, we argue that this witness-centered perspective is antiquated and counterproductive. As a historical matter, focusing on witnesses may have made sense when most evidence was the product of individual observation and action. But the modern world frequently features evidence produced through standardized, objective, and even mechanical processes that largely …
Neuroscientists In Court, Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, Marcus E. Raichle
Neuroscientists In Court, Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, Marcus E. Raichle
Owen Jones
Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being offered in court cases. Consequently, the legal system needs neuroscientists to act as expert witnesses who can explain the limitations and interpretations of neuroscientific findings so that judges and jurors can make informed and appropriate inferences. The growing role of neuroscientists in court means that neuroscientists should be aware of important differences between the scientific and legal fields, and, especially, how scientific facts can be easily misunderstood by non-scientists,including judges and jurors.
This article describes similarities, as well as key differences, of legal and scientific cultures. And it explains six key principles about neuroscience that …
Brain Scans As Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, And Lessons, Owen D. Jones, Francis X. Shen
Brain Scans As Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, And Lessons, Owen D. Jones, Francis X. Shen
Owen Jones
This contribution to the Brain Sciences in the Courtroom Symposium identifies and discusses issues important to admissibility determinations when courts confront brain-scan evidence. Through the vehicle of the landmark 2010 federal criminal trial U.S. v. Semrau (which considered, for the first time, the admissibility of brain scans for lie detection purposes) this article highlights critical evidentiary issues involving: 1) experimental design; 2) ecological and external validity; 3) subject compliance with researcher instructions; 4) false positives; and 5) drawing inferences about individuals from group data. The article’s lessons are broadly applicable to the new wave of neurolaw cases now being seen …
No Means No: An Argument For The Expansion Of Rape Shield Laws To Cases Of Nonconsensual Pornography, Austin Vining
No Means No: An Argument For The Expansion Of Rape Shield Laws To Cases Of Nonconsensual Pornography, Austin Vining
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
This Article considers the impact of a hypothetical nonconsensual pornography victim’s previous sexual history on potential legal remedies, both criminal and civil. Due to jury bias and the difficulty in proving standard elements of many claims, the research shows that such a victim would likely be unsuccessful in court. This Article then turns to two legal concepts from related fields—the incremental harm doctrine and rape shield laws—and considers what effect their application would have on the hypothetical victim’s case. Ultimately, the author presents an argument for the logical expansion of rape shield laws to cases of nonconsensual pornography.
The Challenge Of Convincing Ethical Prosecutors That Their Profession Has A Brady Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz
The Challenge Of Convincing Ethical Prosecutors That Their Profession Has A Brady Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz
Faculty Publications
In recent decades, both the media and legal scholars have documented the widespread problem of prosecutors failing to disclose favorable evidence to the defense – so called Brady violations. Despite all of this documentation however, many ethical prosecutors reject the notion that the criminal justice system has a Brady problem. These prosecutors – ethical lawyers who themselves have not been accused of misconduct – believe that the scope of the Brady problem is exaggerated. Why do ethical prosecutors downplay the evidence that some of their colleagues have committed serious errors?
This essay, in honor of Professor Bennett Gershman, points to …
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 …
O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.
This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …
67. The Utility Of Direct Questions In Eliciting Subjective Content From Children Disclosing Sexual Abuse., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Shanna Williams, Kelly Mcwilliams, Catherine Liang, Thomas D. Lyon
67. The Utility Of Direct Questions In Eliciting Subjective Content From Children Disclosing Sexual Abuse., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Shanna Williams, Kelly Mcwilliams, Catherine Liang, Thomas D. Lyon
Thomas D. Lyon
Legal Burdens Of Proof Under U.S. Law, Tsion Chudnovsky
Legal Burdens Of Proof Under U.S. Law, Tsion Chudnovsky
Tsion Chudnovsky, JD
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
66. Younger And Older Adults’ Lie-Detection And Credibility Judgments Of Children’S Coached Reports, Alison M. O'Connor, Thomas D. Lyon, Angela D. Evans
66. Younger And Older Adults’ Lie-Detection And Credibility Judgments Of Children’S Coached Reports, Alison M. O'Connor, Thomas D. Lyon, Angela D. Evans
Thomas D. Lyon
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.
A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester
A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester
Journal Publications
Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the "warrant requirement," one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. The …
Driving The Drug War: Difficulties With Proper Detection Of Thc And Measurement Of Marijuana Intoxication For The Purposes Of Dui Prosecution, Sage La Rue Zitzkat
Driving The Drug War: Difficulties With Proper Detection Of Thc And Measurement Of Marijuana Intoxication For The Purposes Of Dui Prosecution, Sage La Rue Zitzkat
Dissertations and Honors Papers
No abstract provided.
The Bb Gun: A Harmless Toy Or Deadly Weapon? Practical Guidance For Objective Fact Finding In A Criminal Case, Steven N. Gosney, John Zak
The Bb Gun: A Harmless Toy Or Deadly Weapon? Practical Guidance For Objective Fact Finding In A Criminal Case, Steven N. Gosney, John Zak
Criminal Law Practitioner
No abstract provided.
What Am I Really Saying When I Open My Smartphone: A Response To Prof. Kerr, Laurent Sacharoff
What Am I Really Saying When I Open My Smartphone: A Response To Prof. Kerr, Laurent Sacharoff
Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship
In his forthcoming article in the Texas Law Review, Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Orin S. Kerr addresses a common question confronting courts. If a court orders a suspect or defendant to enter her password to open a smartphone or other device as part of a law enforcement investigation, does that order violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
To answer this question, Kerr appropriately looks by analogy to existing Fifth Amendment case law as applied to document subpoenas, the “act of production” doctrine, and its mysterious cousin, the “foregone conclusion” doctrine. From these materials, he gleans a …
The Inability To Self-Diagnose Bias, Christopher Robertson
The Inability To Self-Diagnose Bias, Christopher Robertson
Faculty Scholarship
The Constitution guarantees litigants an 'impartial' jury, one that bases its judgment on the evidence presented in the courtroom, untainted by affiliations with the parties, racial animus, or media coverage that may include inadmissible facts, a one-sided portrayal, and naked opinion. Problems of juror bias arise in almost every trial – state and federal, civil and criminal - and the problem is most severe in the highest profile cases, where the need for accuracy and legitimacy in outcomes is most salient.
The Supreme Court has instructed courts to use a simple method to determine whether jurors are biased: ask them. …
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law
2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Privacy And Security Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal
Privacy And Security Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
Three recent initiatives -by the United States, European Union, and Australiaare opening salvos in what will likely be an ongoing and critically important debate about law enforcement access to data, the jurisdictional limits to such access, and the rules that apply. Each of these developments addresses a common set of challenges posed by the increased digitalization of information, the rising power of private companies delimiting access to that information, and the cross-border nature of investigations that involve digital evidence. And each has profound implications for privacy, security, and the possibility of meaningful democratic accountability and control. This Essay analyzes the …
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
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 the …
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 …
Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig
Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.