Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (4)
- Character evidence (3)
- Courts (3)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (3)
- Damages (2)
-
- Dora Klein (2)
- Dorie Klein (2)
- Ethics (2)
- Expert testimony (2)
- Hearsay (2)
- Malpractice (2)
- Presumption of innocence (2)
- Rule 404(b) (2)
- St. Mary’s University School of Law (2)
- Witness (2)
- 404(b) (1)
- :) (1)
- :P (1)
- Abatement (1)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
- Additional evidence (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Advocacy expert (1)
- Advocate (1)
- Android (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Appellate court (1)
- Appellate judges (1)
- Appellate rulings (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti
The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Article posits the history of forensic-science evidence plays a significant role in the unquestioning manner of its modern acceptance. It traces early high-profile forensic science “successes” and the public reactions to them. It argues the public perception of the “advances” of forensic science continues to play a role in the lack of scrutiny given to these disciplines in admissibility decisions today. It concludes, when it comes to forensic science, history should play a different role by serving as a critical warning rather than a congratulatory buttress.
Judicial Federalism And The Appropriate Role Of The State Supreme Courts: A 20-Year (2000–2020) Study Of These Courts’ Interest Evaluations Of The Fruits And The Attenuation Doctrines, Dannye R. Holley Mr.
Judicial Federalism And The Appropriate Role Of The State Supreme Courts: A 20-Year (2000–2020) Study Of These Courts’ Interest Evaluations Of The Fruits And The Attenuation Doctrines, Dannye R. Holley Mr.
St. Mary's Law Journal
The current composition of the United States Supreme Court increases the probability that the Court will be more likely to side with the government with respect to identifying, evaluating, and reconciling the interest of the government versus those of the people when issues of “policing” reach the high court. This opens the door for state supreme court to independently assess individually and collectively these seemingly competing interests and potentially provide greater protections to the interest of the people.
This Article is a twenty-year study of dozens of state supreme court decisions made during the period of 2000–2020. The decisions focused …
One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein
One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein
Faculty Articles
The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption
in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …
“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein
“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein
Faculty Articles
Some rules of evidence are complex. The federal rules governing the admissibility of hearsay statements,' for example, include at least forty different provisions. Numerous judges and scholars have commented on the complexity of the hearsay rules. Not all rules of evidence are complex, however. For example, the federal rules governing the admissibility of character evidence are relatively straightforward: evidence that is offered for the purpose of proving character is inadmissible, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Despite this relative straightforwardness, many of the federal circuit courts of appeals have overlaid the rules regarding character evidence particularly Rule 404(b)--with unnecessary interpretive …
Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz
St. Mary's Law Journal
Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …
Must A Friend Indeed Reveal A Friend’S Misdeed? Exploring The Merits Of A Friendship Privilege, Michael D. Moberly
Must A Friend Indeed Reveal A Friend’S Misdeed? Exploring The Merits Of A Friendship Privilege, Michael D. Moberly
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming.
Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson
Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming