Evidence Commons^™

Shaky Science: Shaken Baby Syndrome And Its Disproportionate Impact On False Convictions Of Women Of Color, Shae A. Woodburn

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is a controversial diagnosis and an even more controversial basis for conviction. The syndrome is questioned by scientists and doctors who have yet to come to a consensus on its diagnosis. Courts have permitted SBS evidence to be admitted in criminal trials, and many people have been convicted solely on the basis of this controversial diagnosis. This Note seeks to analyze the history of SBS, the conflicts in the medical and scientific community, standards of evidence that permit its admission in court, and how all of these factors converge in a way that disproportionately impacts women …

(Partial) Clarity: Eliminating The Confusion About The Regulation Of The "Fact"Ual Bases For Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

Expert testimony is offered at the vast majority of trials in courts of general jurisdiction in the United States. Federal Rules of Evidence 702-06 govern the admissibility of such testimony. In its May 15, 2021, report accompanying the most recent proposed amendment to Rule 702, the Advisory Committee on the Evidence Rules asserts that “many courts” have misapplied Rule 702 by holding that questions as to whether “the expert has relied on sufficient facts or data ... are questions of weight and not admissibility.” Rule 702(b) states that to be admissible, an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient fact …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

A Comparative Examination Of Police Interrogation Of Criminal Suspects In Australia, Canada, England And Wales, New Zealand, And The United States, Carol A. Brook, Bruno Fiannaca, David Harvey, Paul Marcus, Renee Pomerance, Paul Roberts

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The interrogation process is central to the investigation and resolution of criminal matters throughout the world. It is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of comparative criminal procedure to study and appreciate the different approaches to the interrogation process in different nations. This Article developed through a series of conversations between six international criminal justice professionals— practicing attorneys, scholars, and judges—regarding the interrogation practices and rules in their respective countries. Providing a comparative look at this important area, this Article examines the applicable practices and procedures in the common law nations of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the …

"Buy One Get One Free": How Reindictment Policies Permit Excessive Searches, Katie Carroll

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government decides to stop prosecuting a case, it files a nolle prosequi with the court. Nolle prosequis are slightly different from motions to dismiss. Unlike a motion to dismiss with prejudice, a prosecutor may later reindict a defendant with the same crime without a double jeopardy issue arising after dropping the same case through nolle prosequi. Furthermore, many states do not require judicial approval for a nolle prosequi. Therefore, prosecutors can gain a number of advantages by using nolle prosequi, like avoiding speedy trial deadlines or having a second chance to win important evidentiary hearings.

The advantages of …

Climate Change Science And The Daubert Standard, Fred K. Morrison, Craig Manson, Matthew C. Wickersham

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

Climate change science attempts to predict the future based on complex modeling of potential levels of CO2, other greenhouse gases, manmade conditions, and naturally occurring events. Even the most widely cited analysis of climate change studies expressly acknowledges the limitations on accurately predicting the effects of climate change on anything other than a macro basis.1 These studies acknowledge substantial uncertainty in the prediction of climate change and its effects on a regional level, much less on a local level.2 Recent lawsuits brought by the State of Rhode Island; the counties of King (Washington), Marin (California), and San Mateo (California); the …

Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …

No Means No: An Argument For The Expansion Of Rape Shield Laws To Cases Of Nonconsensual Pornography, Austin Vining

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article considers the impact of a hypothetical nonconsensual pornography victim’s previous sexual history on potential legal remedies, both criminal and civil. Due to jury bias and the difficulty in proving standard elements of many claims, the research shows that such a victim would likely be unsuccessful in court. This Article then turns to two legal concepts from related fields—the incremental harm doctrine and rape shield laws—and considers what effect their application would have on the hypothetical victim’s case. Ultimately, the author presents an argument for the logical expansion of rape shield laws to cases of nonconsensual pornography.

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Criticism of the hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence has reached a fever pitch in recent years. With scholars calling for the abrogation of the entire hearsay regime or of individual exceptions within it and the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules exploring hearsay amendments, the time for genuine hearsay soul-searching may be at hand. This Article suggests that aggressive proposals to scuttle existing doctrine entirely in favor of alternative approaches to hearsay are overly broad, rejecting the benefits of significant portions of existing doctrine that are functioning well and threatening costly consequences that could make matters worse …

Touch Dna And Chemical Analysis Of Skin Trace Evidence: Protecting Privacy While Advancing Investigations, Mary Graw Leary

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article addresses touch DNA, chemical analysis of skin traces, and the implications for crime scene investigation, arguing that changes in how trace evidence is analyzed require alterations in the law’s approach to its use. Part I discusses the history of traditional DNA analysis. Part II examines the emergence of touch DNA and related technologies and how they differ from traditional DNA analysis. Part III outlines the specific risks created by the collection and storing of results under the current outdated jurisprudence. Part IV focuses on specific risks to suspects and victims of crime. Part V proposes a legal framework …

Appendix: Conjunction-Problem V. Non-Conjunction-Problem Jurisdictions, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober

William & Mary Law Review Online

This appendix presents the relevant data from our survey of jury instructions in support of the article in the print edition of the William & Mary Law Review. The Conjunction Problem and the Logic of Jury Findings (59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 619, 673-87 (2017))

The Conjunction Problem And The Logic Of Jury Findings, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober

William & Mary Law Review

For several decades, evidence theorists have puzzled over the following paradox, known as the “conjunction paradox” or “conjunction problem.” Probability theory appears to tell us that the probability of a conjunctive claim is the product resulting from multiplying the probabilities of its separate conjuncts. In a three element negligence case (breach of duty, causation, damages), a plaintiff who proves each element to a 0.6 probability will have proven her overall claim to a very low probability of 0.216. Either the plaintiff wins the verdict based on this low probability (if the jury focuses on elements), or the plaintiff loses despite …

Defending Daubert: It's Time To Amend Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, David E. Bernstein, Eric G. Lasker

William & Mary Law Review

The 2000 amendments to Rule 702 sought to resolve the debate that had emerged in the courts in the 1990s over the proper meaning of Daubert by codifying the rigorous and structured approach to expert admissibility announced in the Daubert trilogy. Fifteen years later, however, the amendments have only partially accomplished this objective. Many courts continue to resist the judiciary’s proper gatekeeping role, either by ignoring Rule 702’s mandate altogether or by aggressively reinterpreting the Rule’s provisions.

Informed by this additional history of recalcitrance, the time has come for the Judicial Conference to return to the drafting table and finish …

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

William & Mary Law Review

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 …

Does Removing The Force Element Matter?: An Empirical Comparison Of Rape Statistics In Massachusetts And Colorado, Peter Landsman

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Capping E-Discovery Costs: A Hybrid Solution To E-Discovery Abuse, Karel Mazanec

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hear Me Now: The Admission Of Expert Testimony On Battered Women's Syndrome—An Evidentiary Approach, Matthew Fine

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Neuroscience In The Courtroom: An International Concern, Dominique J. Church

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Restyled Federal Rules Of Evidence, Davison M. Douglas, Sidney A. Fitzwater, Daniel J. Capra, Robert A. Hinkle, Joseph Kimble, Joan N. Ericksen, Marilyn L. Huff, Reena A. Raggi, Geraldine Soat Brown, Edward H. Cooper, Kenneth S. Broun, Harris L. Hartz, Katharine Traylor Schaffzin, Roger C. Park, Deborah J. Merritt, Andrew D. Hurwitz, W. Jeremy Counseller, Paula Hannaford-Agor

William & Mary Law Review

A lightly edited transcript of the Symposium held at the William & Mary School of Law on October 28, 2011.

The Impact Of Information Overload On The Capital Jury's Ability To Assess Aggravating And Mitigating Factors, Katie Morgan, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Since 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court has required that death penalty regimes meet two requirements. First, in order to minimize arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty, states must reserve capital punishment to a narrow class of offenders, those most deserving of death. States have done so by requiring that the prosecution prove at least one aggravating factor, i.e., some circumstance that separates the capital defendant on trial from those ineligible to be executed. Second, states must allow for individualization in sentencing by permitting the defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in order to persuade the jury that he is …

Maintaining The Presumption Of Innocence In Date Rape Trials Through The Use Of Language Orders: State V. Safi And The Banning Of The Word "Rape", Jason Wool

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This note evaluates the use of language orders in date rape trials in which the defense is consent through a case study of State v. Safi, in which Tory Bowen claims that Pamir Safi date raped her. In that case, the trial judge granted a motion by the defense to prevent the prosecution and any of their witnesses from using words such as "rape" and "sexual assault." Using State v. Safi as a starting point, the author examines the use of such trial orders from the perspective of both defendants and victims. The author concludes that a modified version of …

The Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

William & Mary Law Review

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …