Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 30 of 32
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans
Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans
University of Cincinnati Law Review
One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.
We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …
Evidence-Based Hearsay, Justin Sevier -- Professor Of Litigation
Evidence-Based Hearsay, Justin Sevier -- Professor Of Litigation
Vanderbilt Law Review
The hearsay rule initially appears straightforward and sensible. It forbids witnesses from repeating secondhand, untested gossip in court, and who among us prefers to resolve legal disputes through untested gossip? Nonetheless, the rule's unpopularity in the legal profession is well-known and far-reaching. It is almost cliche to say that the rule confounds law students, confuses practicing attorneys, and vexes trial judges, who routinely make incorrect calls at trial with respect to hearsay admissibility. The rule fares no better in the halls of legal academia. Although defenses exist, scholars have unleashed a parade of pejoratives at the rule over the years, …
The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack
The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack
Michigan Law Review
Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …
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. …
Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio
Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
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
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino
Michigan Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the …
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Michigan Law Review
Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …
A Prosecutor's Guide To Character Evidence: When Is Uncharged Possession Evidence Probative Of A Defendant's Intent To Distribute?, James Decleene
A Prosecutor's Guide To Character Evidence: When Is Uncharged Possession Evidence Probative Of A Defendant's Intent To Distribute?, James Decleene
Marquette Law Review
none
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …
Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone
Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Scientific Evidence In The Age Of Daubert: A Proposal For A Dual Standard Of Admissibility In Civil And Criminal Cases , William P. Haney Iii
Scientific Evidence In The Age Of Daubert: A Proposal For A Dual Standard Of Admissibility In Civil And Criminal Cases , William P. Haney Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff
The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of The Character Evidence Prohibition: Foundations Of The Rule Against Trial By Character, David P. Leonard
In Defense Of The Character Evidence Prohibition: Foundations Of The Rule Against Trial By Character, David P. Leonard
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Rule 702: Testimony By Experts
Rule 704: Opinion On Ultimate Issue
Rule 803(3): Then Existing Mental, Emotional, Or Physical Condition
Rule 803(3): Then Existing Mental, Emotional, Or Physical Condition
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 803(4): Statements For Purposes Of Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment
Rule 803(4): Statements For Purposes Of Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 803(18): Learned Treatises
Rule 804(B)(1): Former Testimony
Rule 701: Opinion Testimony By Lay Witnesses
Rule 803(1): Present Sense Impression
Rule 803(8)(C): Public Records And Reports
Rule 801(D)(1): Prior Statement By Witness
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rule 1001: The "Original Document" Rule
Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy
Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken
A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary
Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary
Seattle University Law Review
This article first demonstrates that courts historically did not trust penal interest statements in general, and that courts were extremely suspicious of any statements by a third party that implicated the defendant. Since Washington adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) verbatim, this article then analyzes the legislative history of the rule. The article concludes that the legislative history favored exclusion of inculpatory statements but that Congress failed to codify the exclusion because of unrelated problems. Finally, the article discusses the confrontation clause problems that arise when inculpatory statements are allowed into evidence. This article argues that the Parris holding should …