Evidence Commons^™

What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes

Brooklyn Law Review

In Payne v. Tennessee, the US Supreme Court upheld the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) on the ground that they provide valuable information to the sentencer. In the three decades since, two additional rationales for VIS have become ascendant: most prominently, a therapeutic rationale, and more recently, a public education rationale. In this article, I expand upon my critiques of the informational and therapeutic rationales in light of a growing body of empirical evidence about how VIS affect both sentencers and crime victims. Focusing on the powerful and viral VIS delivered at the Larry Nassar guilty plea hearings and …

Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts

Brooklyn Law Review

A broad scholarly coalition supports the prohibition or diminution of the impeachment of criminal defendants with their convictions. Yet scholars should pay more attention to the flipside arrangement: impeachment of prosecution witnesses by defense counsel. First, because those engaged in reform efforts need to resolve the competing interests: constitutional arguments on behalf of the defense, but, on the other hand, concerns about a tool that (regardless of the nature of the witness) risks reinforcing biases and stereotypes. Second, because the impossibility of adequate resolution is itself important to note. Whether one considers the conflicting values of rule-makers deciding whether to …

Can't We Just Talk About This First?: Making The Case For The Use Of Discovery Depositions In Arkansas Criminal Cases, Bryan Altman

Arkansas Law Review

“[T]he quest for better justice is a ceaseless quest, that the single constant for our profession is the need for continuous examination and reexamination of our premises as to what law should do to achieve better justice.” From time to time, it is important that we take stock of our legal surroundings and ask ourselves if our procedures are still properly serving us, or if there is need for change and improvement. In this Article, I argue that the time has come for Arkansas to provide the criminal defense bar with the affirmative power to conduct discovery depositions. Arkansas criminal …

Saidi Banda V The People Scz Appeal No. 114 Of 2015), Mwaka Chizinga

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

The Computer Got It Wrong: Facial Recognition Technology And Establishing Probable Cause To Arrest, T.J. Benedict

Washington and Lee Law Review

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is a popular tool among police, who use it to identify suspects using photographs or still-images from videos. The technology is far from perfect. Recent studies highlight that many FRT systems are less effective at identifying people of color, women, older people, and children. These race, gender, and age biases arise because FRT is often “trained” using non-diverse faces. As a result, police have wrongfully arrested Black men based on mistaken FRT identifications. This Note explores the intersection of facial recognition technology and probable cause to arrest.

Courts rarely, if ever, examine FRT’s role in establishing …

Empowering The Defense To Confront The Government's Powers: Virginia Criminal Justice Legal Reform, Bryan Kennedy, Catherine F. Zagurskie

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

During the 2021 Session and 2021 Special Session, Virginia took steps to

restore the balance between individuals ensnared in the criminal legal system

and the government. These new laws allow people who are involved in

the criminal legal system to emphasize their humanity and to hold the government

to its various burdens at all stages of the case, including pre-trial,

trials, sentencing, and appeal. This article discusses four of the most important

changes to Virginia law that ensure a more level playing field between

the government and the accused.

First, eliminating the presumption against bail challenges the government’s

power of …

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley

Washington Law Review

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (adopted by various states as well) allows for the introduction of certain convictions at trial to impeach the credibility— i.e., character for truthfulness—of any witness. The rule bifurcates its requirements between those that apply to criminal defendants—who, in theory, are afforded greater protection throughout the law than are all other participants in trials—and all remaining witnesses. The most important distinction between the standards that apply to these two classes of witnesses is that for prior crimes of criminal defendants to be introduced to impeach their credibility, those wrongdoings must survive a special balancing test spelled …

Passcodes, Protection, And Legal Practicality: The Necessity Of A Digital Fifth Amendment, Ethan Swierczewski

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Considering "Machine Testimony": The Impact Of Facial Recognition Software On Eyewitness Identifications, Valena Beety

Duquesne Law Review

Andrea Roth's seminal work in Machine Testimony and Trial by Machine presented a problem that is now upon us: addressing biased algorithms and the rampant reliance on technology by prosecutors and law enforcement.¹ That reliance, however, is no longer unquestioning. Roth's work came at a crucial moment in time, when other articles were embracing the apparent impartiality of technology and algorithms for use in the criminal legal system. Her scholarship steered us away from that blind acceptance and dove deep, not only questioning technology itself, but also how to frame those questions of technology in the courtroom.

State V. Smith, 243 A.3d 1045 (R.I. 2021), Katriina Rose Juntunen

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For The Abolition Of Criminal Confessions, Guha Krishnamurthi

SMU Law Review

Confessions have long been considered the gold standard of evidence in criminal proceedings. But in truth, confession evidence imposes significant harms on our criminal justice system, through false convictions and other violations of defendants’ due process and moral rights. Moreover, our current doctrine is unable to eliminate or even curb these harms.

This Article makes the case for the abolition of confession evidence in criminal proceedings. Though it may seem radical, abolition is sensible and best furthers our penological goals. As a theoretical matter, confession evidence has low probative value, but it is prejudicially overvalued by juries and judges. Consequently, …

Coerced Testimony Of A Witness, As Opposed To The Fabrication Of Evidence, Should Not Be Used As A Basis To Satisfy A § 1983 Claim For Alleged Due Process Violations In An Underlying Criminal Matter, 55 Uic L. Rev. 40 (2022), Jonathan Federman, Kyle Fleck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rap Reform: Why Rhode Island Should Exclude Police Detectives And Gang Experts From Interpreting A Criminal Defendant’S Ambiguous Rap Lyrics, Chad O. Stroum

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Machines Can Teach Us About "Confrontation", Andrea Roth

Duquesne Law Review

In this short Article, I argue that treating non-human conveyances of information-and other forms of evidence that cannot be cross-examined-as beyond the Confrontation Clause is unsatisfactory as a matter of text, history, logic, and principle. Instead, all of these clues lead to one conclusion: the right of confrontation is a right not only to physical presence of certain human witnesses to facilitate demeanor review and questioning, but to a meaningful opportunity to scrutinize the government's proof, whatever its form.⁸ That right would include out-of-court discovery of critical contextual information about the evidence, whether or not exculpatory, and a …

Ending Manner-Of-Death Testimony And Other Opinion Determinations Of Crime, Keith A. Findley, Dean A. Strang

Duquesne Law Review

In January 2011, Ellen Greenberg's fianc6 and her apartment building manager broke down her apartment door after she failed repeatedly to respond to attempts to contact her.¹ They found herd ead in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor, the victim of twenty stab wounds to her chest, torso, head, and neck, including stab wounds to the back of her head and to her body through her clothes. They found a half-eaten fruit salad on the kitchen counter along with an overturned knife block. By all appearances, Greenberg was the victim of a grisly murder, and the medical …

2021 Surveys Of Rhode Island Law

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Jones, 242 A.3d 47 (R.I. 2020)., Elizabeth Gravelle

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.