Evidence Commons^™

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

Brief Of Former Article Iii Judges And Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Mohawk Industries V. Carpenter, Stephen I. Vladeck

Amicus Briefs

The burden on the thirteen Article III Courts of Appeals has increased significantly in recent years. Data maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts demonstrate the increasing numerical caseload of the Article III courts of appeals over the last 5, 10, and 25 year periods, even as the number of congressionally authorized judgeships has remained almost static, and the real-dollar value of judicial budgets - including salaries - has decreased.

However, the data tell only part of the story. The same period has also witnessed a subtle but more profound change in the substantive nature of some classes …

The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriate sanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutional claims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable "bad faith" standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other "access to evidence" violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the "access to evidence" …

Reforming The State Secrets Privilege, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.