Evidence Commons^™

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 …

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 407: Should It Apply To Products Liability?, Patricia A. Brass

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Errors In Good Faith: The Leon Exception Six Years Later, David Clark Esseks

Michigan Law Review

Given this vast literature on the good faith exception, little room appears to exist for additional commentary on the propriety of the decision, its theoretical weaknesses or strengths, or what further changes in constitutional criminal procedure it forebodes. This Note will not add to the many voices complaining of the Court's misconstrual of the grounding of the exclusionary rule, nor of its crabbed notion of deterrence. Instead, it accepts, arguendo, the propriety of the exception and its underlying purpose, and then examines the six-year experience with the revised rule. The proliferation of reported applications of the good faith exception …

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

The Use Of In Camera Hearings In Ruling On The Informer Privilege, Ronald E. Levine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The thesis of this article is that most of the problems of defining the scope of the privilege in a particular case are due to the paucity of information available to the trial judge who must rule on the issue. Furthermore, many of the formulas presently used are conceptually and functionally inadequate. Both of these problems can be solved by the use of in camera hearings, for such proceedings not only will provide the trial judge with sufficient information to make a fair and rational decision, but will also alleviate the present necessity to rule only on the basis of …

Federal Courts--Discovery--Stay Of Discovery In Civil Court To Protect Proceedings In Concurrent Criminal Action--The Pattern Of Remedies, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The federal criminal discovery rules were a carefully weighed compromise between the parties' needs for information and the defendant's need for protection from inquisatorial investigation. This balance may be upset when the more liberal discovery rules in a concurrent, related civil action permit information to be obtained which is not discoverable under the criminal rules. Two recent cases, United States v. Simon and United States v. American Radiator &- Standard Sanitary Corp., illustrate the difficulty of protecting the integrity of the criminal discovery rules in such a situation.