Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Carmichael (1)
-
- Co-conspirator (1)
- Conspiracy (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Daubert hearing (1)
- Daubert test (1)
- Death penalty appeal (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Due process (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Extra-record evidence (1)
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Federal court (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Foreign evidence (1)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (1)
- Independent source (1)
- Inevitable discovery (1)
- Joinder (1)
- Joint trials (1)
- Kumho tire (1)
- Megatrial (1)
- Multinational investigations (1)
- Murray v. United States (1)
- Nardone v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix
Mercer Law Review
In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins
Mercer Law Review
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.