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

Evidence Commons

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

Legal History

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 114

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Sep 2019

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott Apr 2019

O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott

Dickinson Law Review

The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.

This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive ...


Is The Exclusionary Rule A Prohibition-Era Relic?, Thomas M. Hardiman, Lauren Gailey Apr 2019

Is The Exclusionary Rule A Prohibition-Era Relic?, Thomas M. Hardiman, Lauren Gailey

Michigan Law Review

Review of Wesley M. Oliver's The Prohibition Era and Policing: A Legacy of Misregulation.


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review Feb 2019

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis Jan 2019

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review

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 ...


Judicializing History: Mass Crimes Trials And The Historian As Expert Witness In West Germany, Cambodia, And Bangladesh, Rebecca Gidley, Mathew Turner Dec 2018

Judicializing History: Mass Crimes Trials And The Historian As Expert Witness In West Germany, Cambodia, And Bangladesh, Rebecca Gidley, Mathew Turner

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

Henry Rousso warned that the engagement of historians as expert witnesses in trials, particularly highly politicized proceedings of mass crimes, risks a judicialization of history. This article tests Rousso’s argument through analysis of three quite different case studies: the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; and the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. It argues that Rousso’s objections misrepresent the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, while failing to account for the engagement of historical expertise in mass atrocity trials beyond Europe. Paradoxically, Rousso’s criticisms are less suited to the European context that represents his purview ...


It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko Apr 2018

It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko

Dickinson Law Review

In 1982, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Williams, wherein the court held that a defendant charged with rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) cannot use a mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s consent. The court relied on the reasoning that a defendant’s mens rea is not an element of either rape or IDSI. Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, however, requires that where the legislature has failed to expressly require a finding of mens rea in the text of the statute, at least recklessness must be imputed to each material element.

This ...


Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed Oct 2017

Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed

Dickinson Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George Mar 2017

The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan Sep 2016

Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan

LLM Theses

An examination of the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and current application. The analysis occurs in three steps. In section 1, the historical rationale of the hearsay rule is identified through a reconciliation of competing theories. Section 2 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of the exclusionary hearsay rule. Section 3 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of some categorical hearsay exceptions.

Overall, the thesis finds that the hearsay rules historical rationale has three aspects: concern with the inherent reliability of hearsay evidence, concern with procedural ...


Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr Dec 2014

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

Julia Simon-Kerr

This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that ...


Perjury: An Anthology, Richard H. Underwood Dec 2014

Perjury: An Anthology, Richard H. Underwood

Richard H. Underwood

Professor Underwood takes an in-depth look at the occurrence of perjury from ancient Rome to the O.J. Simpson trial. This journey through time provides insight into the motives of perjurers, the difficulties involved in catching them; and the alarming frequency with which they succeed, unchastised.


A Pragmatic Critique Of Modern Evidence Scholarship, Michael L. Seigel Dec 2014

A Pragmatic Critique Of Modern Evidence Scholarship, Michael L. Seigel

Michael L Seigel

This Article contends that strict adherence to optimistic rationalism has blinded evidence scholars to the reality that the law of evidence is as indeterminate as all other areas of the law. At its core is not a single goal -- the attainment of truth -- but a number of important, complex, and, alas, competing considerations. Answers to questions concerning the appropriate configuration of evidence doctrine cannot be deduced from a unitary principle; indeed, they cannot be deduced at all. Rather, arguments about evidence doctrine must be conducted in the realm of "practical reason." Practical reason is the process through which individuals argue ...


Visualizing Probabilistic Proof, Enrique Guerra-Pujol Nov 2014

Visualizing Probabilistic Proof, Enrique Guerra-Pujol

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

The author revisits the Blue Bus Problem, a famous thought-experiment in law involving probabilistic proof, and presents Bayesian solutions to different versions of the blue bus hypothetical. In addition, the author expresses his solutions in standard and visual formats, that is, in terms of probabilities and natural frequencies.


Bringing Guns To A Gun Fight: Why The Adversarial System Is Best Served By A Policy Compelling Attorneys To Ethically Mine For Metadata, Justin Fong Nov 2014

Bringing Guns To A Gun Fight: Why The Adversarial System Is Best Served By A Policy Compelling Attorneys To Ethically Mine For Metadata, Justin Fong

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

No abstract provided.


Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen Aug 2014

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 ...


Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page Feb 2014

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend ...


Confined To A Narrative: Approaching Rape Shield Laws Through Legal Narratology, Kathryn C. Swiss Jan 2014

Confined To A Narrative: Approaching Rape Shield Laws Through Legal Narratology, Kathryn C. Swiss

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

No abstract provided.


The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman Jan 2014

The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I ...


Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe Jan 2014

Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement, published here, containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent ...


The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas Jan 2014

The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


“A Chinaman’S Chance” In Court: Asian Pacific Americans And Racial Rules Of Evidence, Gabriel J. Chin Dec 2013

“A Chinaman’S Chance” In Court: Asian Pacific Americans And Racial Rules Of Evidence, Gabriel J. Chin

UC Irvine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill Jul 2013

Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

Drawing on research into the use of experts in early 19th-century criminal trials, the image of mad alchemists in popular culture representations of science, and the distinction between empirical and contingent “interpretive repertoires” in the discourse of scientific controversies, this article explores the controversy over arsenic-detection technologies prior to the Marsh test. In addition to noting the predictable criticism of incompetent expertise in the service of law, this article highlights implied accusations of hubris and amorality on the part of over-confident experts, both in the early 19th-century and in today's crisis of forensic science.


Judges In The Executive Branch And Judges In The Judicial Branch: Similar, Yet Distinct, Thomas G. Welshko Apr 2013

Judges In The Executive Branch And Judges In The Judicial Branch: Similar, Yet Distinct, Thomas G. Welshko

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.


There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon Mar 2013

There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.


Cipa V. State Secrets: How A Few Mistakes Confused Two Important National Security Privileges, Elisa Poteat Feb 2013

Cipa V. State Secrets: How A Few Mistakes Confused Two Important National Security Privileges, Elisa Poteat

Elisa Poteat

No abstract provided.


The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan Jan 2013

The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee Jan 2013

Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone Jan 2013

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.