Evidence Commons^™

Racial Imagery In Criminal Cases, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

Sheri Lynn Johnson

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb

Sherry Colb

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Life, Death, And Neuroimaging: The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Defense's Use Of Neuroimages In Capital Cases - Lessons From The Front, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

The use of neuroimaging in capital cases has become increasingly common. An informal survey of cases produced over one hundred opinions from reported decisions alone discussing the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans, and similar technology in capital cases. This article gives practical advice to defense counsel considering the use of neuroimaging in a capital case. We discuss how, in the right case, this technology can be a valuable investigative tool used to produce an important component of a successful mitigation story. However, …

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Admissibility Of Co-Conspirator Statements In A Post-Crawford World, Michael L. Seigel, Daniel Weisman

Michael L Seigel

This Article takes the position that co-conspirator statements must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are testimonial and thus subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. Further, in light of the fact that the author of the majority opinions in Crawford and Davis was Justice Antonin Scalia, this Article examines whether interpreting the Sixth Amendment as a bar to the admission of certain coconspirator statements would violate an originalist interpretation of that provision. The conclusion reached is that it would not. In the current era of ever-narrowing rights for criminal defendants, reaffirming the law's commitment to …

5. American Professional Society On The Abuse Of Children In Support Of Petitioner, Ohio V. Clark (Merits), Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

No abstract provided.

40. Question Types, Responsiveness And Self-Contradictions When Prosecutors And Defense Attorneys Question Alleged Victims Of Child Sexual Abuse, Samantha J. Andrews, Michael E. Lamb, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Are You Recording This?: Enforcement Of Police Videotaping, Martina Kitzmueller

Martina Kitzmueller

Increasing numbers of police departments equip officers with dashboard or body cameras. Advances in technology have made it easy for police to create and preserve videos of their citizen encounters. Videos can be important pieces of evidence; they may also serve to document police misconduct or protect officers from false allegations. Yet too often, videos are lost, destroyed, or never made, often depriving criminal defendants of the only objective evidence in a case. When this happens, there is not always a consequence to the prosecution. This Essay explores this problem of enforcement by examining how different states are compelling law …

39. Young Children’S Difficulty With Indirect Speech Acts: Implications For Questioning Child Witnesses, Angela D. Evans, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kang Lee, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Beating The Prisoner At Prisoner's Dilemma: The Evidentiary Value Of A Witness's Refusal To Testify , Russell Dean Covey

Russell D. Covey

No abstract provided.

Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

California has become a Daubert state. In Sargon v. The University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court held that judges are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert or scientific evidence in this state, just as has been the case in the federal system (and many other states) since the decision in Daubert. Now that California is avowedly a Daubert state, it is important to understand why courtroom evidence – scientific, expert or, for that matter, otherwise – is properly grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from experience. Understanding this empirical basis for both Daubert …

The Fourth Amendment Fetches Fido: The Future Of Dog Searches, Robert M. Bloom, Dana L. Walsh

Robert M. Bloom

For over thirty-five years, the Supreme Court has grappled with the controversial issue of affirmative action and race preference. Beginning with Justice Lewis Powell’s influential opinion in Bakke v. U. Cal. Davis in 1978, leeway has been permitted for admissions policies that take account of race, as long as it is not given determinative weight so as to exclude consideration of nonminority candidates, or used to set quotas. As the Court has become increasingly conservative, however, its license for race preference has tightened considerably, and it has become receptive to “reverse discrimination” plaintiffs challenging such policies in universities and the …

Gay Panic And The Case For Gay Shield Laws, Kelly Strader, Molly Selvin, Lindsey Hay

Kelly Strader

In a highly publicized “gay panic” case, Brandon McInerney shot and killed Larry King in their middle school classroom. King was a self-identified gay student who sometimes wore jewelry and makeup to school and, according to those who knew him, was possibly transgender. Tried as an adult for first-degree murder, McInerney asserted a heat of passion defense based upon King’s alleged sexual advances. The jury deadlocked, with a majority accepting McInerney’s defense. Drawing largely upon qualitative empirical research, this article uses the Larry King murder case as a prism though which to view the doctrinal, theoretical, and policy bases of …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …

Government Denial Under Oath – Hidta, Hemisphere And Parallel Construction, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

In September of last year, the New York Times reported on a remarkable program of the United States Government that involved spying on domestic phone records without a warrant.1 The news had a limited independent impact as it seemed to be lost in the disclosures of Michael Snowden regarding the National Security Administration (NSA), which purportedly was aimed at foreign terrorists but also included domestic targets. Yet, this program, called “Hemisphere,” was authorized by the Office of the President of the United States, Office of Drug Control Policy, under the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program (HIDTA) and it primarily …

38. Social And Cognitive Factors Associated With Children's Secret-Keeping For A Parent., Heidi M. Gordon, Thomas D. Lyon, Kang Lee

Thomas D. Lyon

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Shredded Fish,, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

There are just too many criminal laws and their proliferation has expanded exponentially over the last few decades. This is overcriminalization. In addition, the jurisdiction of federal authorities under general or vague laws has vastly expanded federal criminal prosecution of people and organizations for what otherwise would not be a crime. This is overfederalization and overcriminalization. In this article we will look at the current litigation before the United States Supreme Court that had directly taken on this controversy. The case of Yates v. United States involves briefing by the parties and by amici curae directly invoking and defending the …

37. Attorneys' Questions And Children's Productivity In Child Sexual Abuse Criminal Trials., J. Zoe Klemfuss, Jodi A. Quas, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

36. Evidence Summarized In Attorneys' Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals In Criminal Trials Of Child Sexual Abuse., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

35. Interviewing Children., Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

34. Disclosure Suspicion Bias And Abuse Disclosure: Comparisons Between Sexual And Physical Abuse., Elizabeth B. Rush, Thomas D. Lyon, Elizabeth C. Ahern, Jodi A. Quas

Thomas D. Lyon

Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting The Appellate Standard Of Review For Hearsay, Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson, Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting the Appellate Standard of Review for Hearsay

Abstract:

The decision by a federal a court to exclude or admit hearsay can be crucial to the case of either party. Despite this prospective impact, the federal courts of appeal currently defer to district courts’ expertise by reviewing a district court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay for an abuse of discretion. Such deference often insulates district courts’ incorrect interpretation of the rule against hearsay and the improper application of the exclusions and exceptions to the rule from appellate reversal.

Lowering the standard of review for …

9. Children's Memory For Conversations About Sexual Abuse: Legal And Psychological Implications., Thomas D. Lyon, Stacia N. Stolzenberg

Thomas D. Lyon

Rationality, Insanity, And The Insanity Defense: Reflections On The Limits Of Reason, Theodore Y. Blumoff

Theodore Y. Blumoff

Individuals who suffer from chronic paranoid ideations live with deeply embedded conspiratorial delusions that are sometimes accompanied by unwanted visual and/or auditory stimuli, sometime neither: just psychotic delusions in which they feel as if they have lost control of their lives – and of course they have, albeit not from the performances of foreign forces. When those perceived forces persevere for even a fairly short period of time, they can dictate the performance of evil deeds that the individual ultimately feels helpless to oppose. What observations and findings from neuroscience make clear is that such individuals do not lack knowledge, …

Finding The Foregone Conclusions Of Encryption, Timothy A. Wiseman

Timothy A Wiseman

Encryption is commonly used to protect private information, for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Courts have been struggling to determine when, within the bounds of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Courts may compel a defendant in a criminal case to decrypt their data.

This article argues that a broad use of the Forgone Conclusion doctrine would permit the Courts to order a defendant to decrypt their data when the prosecution can show with reasonable particularity the existence and location of the encrypted documents, that they are likely to be incriminating, and that the government can authenticate them without the …