Evidence Commons^™

A New Baseline For Character Evidence, Julia Simon-Kerr -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Perhaps no rules of evidence are as contested as the rules governing character evidence. To ward off the danger of a fact finder's mistaking evidence of character for evidence of action, the rules exclude much contextual information about the people at the center of the proceeding. This prohibition on character propensity evidence is a bedrock principle of American law. Yet despite its centrality, it is uncertain of both content and application. Contributing to this uncertainty is a definitional lacuna. Although a logical first question in thinking about character evidence is how to define it, the Federal Rules of Evidence have …

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. …

"Against The Defendant": Plea Rule's Purpose V. Plain Meaning, Nick Bell

Arkansas Law Review

Rarely is there a proverbial “smoking gun” in criminal prosecutions. Instead, prosecutors and defense attorneys must tell juries competing stories—largely from circumstantial evidence—and allow jurors to determine what happened based on inferences gleaned from argument and testimony. Naturally, this creates substantial uncertainty for both prosecutors and defendants. Instead of rolling the dice at trial, the vast majority of criminal matters are resolved through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining provides both sides with a certainty otherwise unobtainable through a traditional trial. The prosecution guarantees itself a conviction, and the defendant will often receive a lighter sentence than if he or she had …

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

University of Miami Law Review

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created “tests” that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as “propensity” evidence, or “once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer” evidence.

This Article examines …

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

Procuring The Right To An Unfair Trial: Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6) And The Due Process Implications Of The Rule's Failure To Require Standards Of Reliability For Admissible Evidence, Kelly Rutan

American University Law Review

This Comment argues that though the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing allows a court to forfeit both a defendant’s right to object to the admission of hearsay statements and the right of confrontation, the current state of the law requires all out-of-court statements admitted under Rule 804(b)(6) to possess some level of reliability in order to satisfy due process. Part I of this Comment discusses the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the courts’ treatment of this principle prior to 1997, and its codification into the Federal Rules of Evidence. Part II looks at Confrontation Clause issues unique to hearsay exceptions …

Standards Of Evidence In Administrative Proceedings, William H. Kuenhle

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …

The Death Of Discretion: Prior Felony Convictions Automatically Admissible In Civil Actions - Green V. Bock Laundry Machine Co., Kimberly S. Smith

Campbell Law Review

This Note has four objectives. First, the Note examines the facts presented to the Green Court. Second, the Note surveys Rule 609's history and the divergent pre-Green views regarding Rule 609's application in the civil arena. Third, the Note examines Green's analysis and the Supreme Court's conclusion that Rule 609 forecloses any judicial discretion in admitting or excluding prior convictions evidence. And, finally, the Note concludes that North Carolina's Rule 609 should also be interpreted as requiring trial judges to admit prior convictions evidence regardless of unfair prejudice.

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 …