Evidence Commons^™

Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas

Dalhousie Law Journal

This paper examines the constitutionality of the Anton Piller order in Canadian law. First, the paper examines whether Anton Piller orders overall are unconstitutional through three major avenues of attack: (i) Charter challenges; (ii) the ultra vires doctrine; and (iii) the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. Afterwards, in the event that no challenge against Anton Piller orders broadly would succeed, the paper examines whether their uniquely Canadian variant known as a “rolling” or “John (or Jane) Doe” Anton Piller orders could be challenged, looking at both Charter and non-Charter challenges. Finally, this paper proposes the imposition of additional …

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.

In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …

No Link: The Jury And The Origins Of The Confrontation Right And The Hearsay Rule, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

The rule against hearsay has long been one of the most distinctive elements of the common law of evidence, and indeed— except for recent changes on the civil side in many jurisdictions— of the common law system of trial. Observers have long believed that the rule, like most of the other exclusionary rules of the common law of evidence, is "the child of the jury system". Though Edmund Morgan argued vigorously to the contrary, the received understanding is that the jury's inability to account satisfactorily for the defects of hearsay explains the rule. A famous, and perhaps seminal, expression of …

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.

Anchors And Flotsam: Is Evidence Law 'Adrift'?, Richard D. Friedman

Reviews

Difference, as well as distance, yields perspective. A comparison of legal systems may search for common underlying principles, or for lessons that one system might learn from another. But it may also be aimed primarily at illuminating one system by light shed from another. This is the aim of Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damagka's elegant study of the common law system of evidence, and he is ideally suited for the task. Born and schooled in Continental Europe, he has lived and taught in the United States for twenty-five years. His relation to the common law system of evidence is, I …

Foreword Evidence Symposium: A Comparative Study Of Federal And New York Evidence Practice, Honorable Frank X. Altimari

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juveniles And Their Right To A Jury Trial, Timothy E. Foley

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Story On The Common Law Of Evidence, John C. Hogan

Vanderbilt Law Review

In our system of jurisprudence it is the province of the jury to decide all matters of fact. The trial is held and the verdict of the jury is delivered in the presence of a judge who is bound to decide matters of law which arise in the course of the trial. Whenever a thing offered as proof is questioned as not proper to go before the jury as evidence, that question is to be resolved by the judge, and unless he permits it to be introduced as evidence at the trial, it can not legally come to the consideration …