Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (7)
- Admissibility (3)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Disclosure (2)
-
- Hearsay (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Self-incrimination (2)
- #MeToo (1)
- Abatement (1)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
- Additional evidence (1)
- Adversary System (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Appellate court (1)
- Appellate judges (1)
- Appellate rulings (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Arbitration award (1)
- Attorney's fees (1)
- Attorneys (1)
- Bad faith (1)
- Batson/edmonson (1)
- Behavioral Economics (1)
- Bifurcation (1)
- Brady (1)
- Brady material (1)
- Challenges for cause (1)
- Character (1)
- City of Hays v. Vogt (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Hb 282 - Preservation Of Sexual Assault Evidence, Rebecca A. Dickinson, Alessandra T. Palazzolo
Hb 282 - Preservation Of Sexual Assault Evidence, Rebecca A. Dickinson, Alessandra T. Palazzolo
Georgia State University Law Review
This Act extends the time that law enforcement agencies are required to preserve certain evidence of sexual assault. Physical evidence of a reported sexual assault will be preserved for fifty years, and if there is an arrest, for thirty years from the date of arrest or seven years from the sentence’s completion.
Evidence’S #Metoo Moment, Aníbal Rosario-Lebrón
Evidence’S #Metoo Moment, Aníbal Rosario-Lebrón
University of Miami Law Review
The #MeToo movement has drawn attention to the prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence. But more importantly, it has exposed how society discounts the testimony of women. This Article unfolds how this credibility discounting is reinforced in our evidentiary system through the use of character for untruthfulness evidence to impeach victims. Specifically, through defense attorneys’ practice of impeaching sexual and gender-based violence victims’ character for truthfulness as a way to introduce functional evidence of credibility biases regarding the trustworthiness of sexual and gender-based violence victims and the plausibility of their testimonies. The Article further shows a correlation between the poor …
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
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump
Seattle University Law Review
There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer
Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer
South Carolina Law Review
No abstract provided.
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
William & Mary Law Review
Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.
This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …
Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig
Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.