Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- DNA (2)
- Ad hominem (1)
- Algorithms (1)
- Automated Fingerprint Identification (1)
- Breathalyzers (1)
-
- CWA (1)
- California Constitution (1)
- California Supreme Court (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Comity (1)
- Computer software (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Copyright (1)
- County of Maui (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- DNA Act (1)
- DNA Evidence (1)
- Data privacy (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witness (1)
- Felony (1)
- Forensic (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- GDPR (1)
- General Data Protection Regulation (1)
- Genotyping (1)
- Groundwater (1)
- Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason
Cleveland State Law Review
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …
Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin
Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin
Seattle University Law Review
Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States was recently asked to decide whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of pollutants that originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source. Vacating the Ninth Circuit’s “fairly traceable” test, the Court held the Clean Water Act requires a permit when there is a direct discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge.”
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
The Use Of Technical Experts In Software Copyright Cases: Rectifying The Ninth Circuit’S “Nutty” Rule, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter Menell
The Use Of Technical Experts In Software Copyright Cases: Rectifying The Ninth Circuit’S “Nutty” Rule, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter Menell
All Faculty Scholarship
Courts have long been skeptical about the use of expert witnesses in copyright cases. More than four decades ago, and before Congress extended copyright law to protect computer software, the Ninth Circuit in Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., ruled that expert testimony was inadmissible to determine whether Mayor McCheese and the merry band of McDonaldland characters infringed copyright protection for Wilhelmina W. Witchiepoo and the other imaginative H.R. Pufnstuf costumed characters. Since the emergence of software copyright infringement cases in the 1980s, substantially all software copyright cases have permitted expert witnesses to aid juries in understanding software …
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
OSSA Conference Archive
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.
Secret Conviction Programs, Meghan J. Ryan
Secret Conviction Programs, Meghan J. Ryan
Washington and Lee Law Review
Judges and juries across the country are convicting criminal defendants based on secret evidence. Although defendants have sought access to the details of this evidence—the results of computer programs and their underlying algorithms and source codes—judges have generally denied their requests. Instead, judges have prioritized the business interests of the for-profit companies that developed these “conviction programs” and which could lose market share if the secret algorithms and source codes on which the programs are based were exposed. This decision has jeopardized criminal defendants’ constitutional rights.
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Break From Reality: Modernizing Authentication Standards For Digital Video Evidence In The Era Of Deepfakes, John P. Lamonaga
A Break From Reality: Modernizing Authentication Standards For Digital Video Evidence In The Era Of Deepfakes, John P. Lamonaga
American University Law Review
The legal standard for authenticating photographic and video evidence in court has remained largely static throughout the evolution of media technology in the twentieth century. The advent of “deepfakes,” or fake videos created using artificial intelligence programming, renders outdated many of the assumptions that the Federal Rules of Evidence are built upon.
Rule 901(b)(1) provides a means to authenticate evidence through the testimony of a “witness with knowledge.” Courts commonly admit photographic and video evidence by using the “fair and accurate portrayal” standard to meet this Rule’s intent. This standard sets an extremely low bar—the witness need only testify that …
Domesticating Comity: Territorial U.S. Discovery In Violation Of Foreign Privacy Laws, Corby F. Burger
Domesticating Comity: Territorial U.S. Discovery In Violation Of Foreign Privacy Laws, Corby F. Burger
Cornell Law Review
The European Union's (EU) recently enacted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is being billed as "the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years." The GDPR sets forth a stringent set of binding regulations that govern how data controllers and processors manage the private electronic data of EU citizens. In an audacious effort to ensure comprehensive privacy protection for EU citizens in a globally connected digital landscape, EU regulators have made the GDPR apply extraterritorially. The regulation extends beyond the borders of the European Union, reaching any entity that stores or processes the personal data of EU citizens …
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
The Future Of The Confrontation Clause: Semiautonomous And Autonomous Machine Witnesses, Brian Sites
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
How should the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment be interpreted as to machine witnesses? Courts across the country have resisted efforts to cross-examine the human agents who assist machines that generate data used in criminal trials. Such challenges under the Confrontation Clause have been rejected directly and in great number, and the rules of evidence are largely being read to not require the testimony of those who have the best information about the machine's use for the case at hand. This problem arises in an era of machine exceptionalism and widespread use. From increasingly sophisticated forensic lab tools to …
In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth
In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth
Seattle University Law Review
Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents