Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer May 2015

Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer

Michigan Law Review

Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …


From The Wrong End Of The Telescope: A Response To Professor David Bernstein, Margaret A. Berger, Aaron D. Twerski Aug 2006

From The Wrong End Of The Telescope: A Response To Professor David Bernstein, Margaret A. Berger, Aaron D. Twerski

Michigan Law Review

On the pages of this law review, in an article entitled Uncertainty and Informed Choice: Unmasking Daubert, the authors argued for the recognition of a new product liability cause of action when drug companies fail to warn about uncertain risks attendant to the use of non-therapeutic drugs whose purpose is to enhance lifestyle. We noted that in the post-Daubert era, plaintiffs have faced increasing difficulty in proving that a given toxic agent was causally responsible for the injuries suffered after ingesting a drug. That plaintiffs cannot overcome the barriers to proving injury causation does not mean that defendants have met …


Learning The Wrong Lessons From "An American Tragedy": A Critique Of The Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, David E. Bernstein Aug 2006

Learning The Wrong Lessons From "An American Tragedy": A Critique Of The Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, David E. Bernstein

Michigan Law Review

Margaret Berger and Aaron Twerski are among the leading scholars in their respective fields of Evidence and Products Liability. I have benefited from their work on many occasions. Precisely because of the deserved respect and esteem in which Berger and Twerski are held-not to mention the prominence of their forum, the Michigan Law Review-their proposal to create a new "informed choice" cause of action in pharmaceutical litigation is likely to receive sympathetic attention. Because I believe that their proposal is ill-conceived and dangerous, I feel compelled (with some trepidation) to write this response. Berger and Twerski propose that courts recognize …


Federal Procedure-Appeal Under Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act--Scope Of Admiralty Appeal Compared With Appeal Under The New Federal Rules, De Witte Chatterton Oct 1945

Federal Procedure-Appeal Under Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act--Scope Of Admiralty Appeal Compared With Appeal Under The New Federal Rules, De Witte Chatterton

Michigan Law Review

Appellee, the United States government, by a proceeding in rem, sought to condemn two shipments of canned oysters packed by appellant, the C. C. Company, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, on the ground that the oysters were wholly or partially decomposed. The district court found for the appellee on conflicting evidence of experts, and appellant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On the theory that procedure on appeal should conform to appeals in admiralty, the circuit court of appeals reviewed the whole case de novo, reversed the district court on the ground …