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

Evidence Commons

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

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Cultural Bias In Judicial Decision Making, Masua Sagiv May 2015

Cultural Bias In Judicial Decision Making, Masua Sagiv

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

This Essay describes the phenomenon of cultural bias in judicial decision making, and examines the use of testimonies and opinions of cultural experts as a way to diminish this bias. The Essay compares the legal regimes of the United States and Israel. Whereas in the United States, the general practice of using cultural experts in courts is well developed and regulated, the Israeli legal procedure has no formal method for admitting cultural expert testimony, and examples of opinions or testimonies of cultural experts in the Israeli legal system are sporadic. The Essay further argues that social science evidence is an ...


The Pretrial Discovery Process In Civil Cases: A Comparison Of Evidence Discovery Between China And The United States, Elizabeth Fahey Massachusetts Superior Court, Zhirong Tao May 2014

The Pretrial Discovery Process In Civil Cases: A Comparison Of Evidence Discovery Between China And The United States, Elizabeth Fahey Massachusetts Superior Court, Zhirong Tao

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

This article compares and contrasts the pre-trial discovery mechanisms used in China and the United States, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Although both use similar discovery tools, like requests to inspect evidence and expert examination of the parties, their discovery systems vary greatly. Ultimately, China prefers that judges largely conduct discovery, that the parties mutually select expert witnesses, and that the primary objective is to determine the truth, even at the expense of finality. Conversely, the United States prefers a much more adversarial system, in which the parties collect the evidence, submit motions to the court ...


Anchoring The Law In A Bed Of Principle: A Critique Of, And Proposal To Improve, Canadian And American Hearsay And Confrontation Law, Mike Madden May 2012

Anchoring The Law In A Bed Of Principle: A Critique Of, And Proposal To Improve, Canadian And American Hearsay And Confrontation Law, Mike Madden

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

As recent case law demonstrates, both American Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and Canadian common law relating to hearsay evidence are conceptually problematic. The laws are, at times, internally incoherent and are difficult to justify on the basis of legal principles. This Article critiques confrontation and hearsay law in the United States and Canada, respectively, by exposing the lack of principle underlying each body of law. The Article develops a principled basis for evidence law in general, and hearsay and confrontation law in particular, providing a more stable foundation for hearsay and confrontation frame-works. Ultimately, the Article argues that the ...


Caught In A Web Of Lies: Use Of Prior Inconsistent Statements To Impeach Witnesses Before The Icty, Elizabeth M. Dipardo May 2008

Caught In A Web Of Lies: Use Of Prior Inconsistent Statements To Impeach Witnesses Before The Icty, Elizabeth M. Dipardo

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

Trial attorneys around the world face the problem of how to confront a witness whose live testimony contradicts his prior statements. U.S. prosecutors take refuge under Federal Rule of Evidence 613 and the Harris doctrine, which permit inadmissible hearsay and illegally obtained statements to be used to impeach a witness’s live testimony. No similar rule aids prosecutors at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Recent divergent decisions regarding the use of inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes have left ICTY prosecutors struggling to prove cases against the most heinous criminals in history. This Note argues that ...


Unfair Consequences: How The Reforms To The Rule Against Hearsay In The Criminal Justice Act 2003 Violate A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial Under The European Convention On Human Rights, Conor Mulcahy May 2005

Unfair Consequences: How The Reforms To The Rule Against Hearsay In The Criminal Justice Act 2003 Violate A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial Under The European Convention On Human Rights, Conor Mulcahy

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

For years, judges and legislatures in common-law jurisdictions have struggled to develop effective and equitable rules regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements. Particularly in criminal cases, in which a defendant’s very liberty is often at stake, governments have endeavored to strike the balance between the prosecution’s need for probative evidence against the accused and the defendant’s right to cross-examine those who have made statements against him. Parliament attempted to achieve such parity when it passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a watershed piece of legislation that significantly liberalized the admissibility of hearsay statements in English and Welsh ...


Lessons From The Pupil: A Canadian Solution To The American Exclusionary Rule Debate, James Stribopoulos Dec 1999

Lessons From The Pupil: A Canadian Solution To The American Exclusionary Rule Debate, James Stribopoulos

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.