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

Initial Disclosures And Discovery Reform In The Wake Of Plausible Pleading Standards, Emily Gainor Sep 2011

Initial Disclosures And Discovery Reform In The Wake Of Plausible Pleading Standards, Emily Gainor

Boston College Law Review

This Note advocates for the reform of the federal initial disclosure of documents rule. Plausible pleadings, mandated by Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, provide sufficient foundation to support increased use of initial disclosures as a means to reduce the costs of civil discovery. The Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session’s Discovery Pilot Project pioneered a reform initial disclosure rule. The Discovery Pilot Project’s initial disclosure rule differs from the initial disclosure requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that it (i) requires actual document production and (ii) is intended as ...


Hand Over Your Tax Accrual Workpapers: The First Circuit In United States V. Textron Exposes Dual-Purpose Documents To Discovery, Kerry L. Killeen Apr 2011

Hand Over Your Tax Accrual Workpapers: The First Circuit In United States V. Textron Exposes Dual-Purpose Documents To Discovery, Kerry L. Killeen

Boston College Law Review

On August 13, 2009, the First Circuit in United States v. Textron Inc. held that tax accrual workpapers are not protected from discovery under the attorney work-product privilege. In so doing, the court eviscerated the last line of protection for dual-purpose tax documents from the prying eyes of the IRS and opposing parties in litigation.


No Longer Playing Nevils Advocate: The Ninth Circuit Constricts Appellate Review For Insufficiency Of Evidence Claims, Vincent M. Chiappini Apr 2011

No Longer Playing Nevils Advocate: The Ninth Circuit Constricts Appellate Review For Insufficiency Of Evidence Claims, Vincent M. Chiappini

Boston College Law Review

On March 19, 2010, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Nevils held that a reviewing court hearing criminal appeals on the grounds of insufficient evidence must resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the prosecution and ask only if any rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision makes it more difficult for the Ninth Circuit to reverse criminal convictions and ultimately preserves the jury’s proper role as the trier of fact.


Making The Jurors The "Experts": The Case For Eyewitness Identification Jury Instructions, Christian Sheehan Mar 2011

Making The Jurors The "Experts": The Case For Eyewitness Identification Jury Instructions, Christian Sheehan

Boston College Law Review

Although courts and scholars have long recognized the weaknesses of eyewitness testimony, the legal system has yet to find a satisfactory mechanism for educating jurors—who are generally unaware of the complex psychological processes that affect eyewitness accuracy—about the inherent fallibility of such testimony. Many scholars argue that the best option is to allow an expert witness to testify to the factors that can affect an eyewitness’s ability to perceive and remember. Yet eyewitness expert testimony presents several practical and equitable concerns, and even in jurisdictions that allow eyewitness experts, trial courts have been far from consistent in ...


Hooded: Binyam Mohamed And The State Secrets Privilege, Laura K. Mehalko Feb 2011

Hooded: Binyam Mohamed And The State Secrets Privilege, Laura K. Mehalko

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

The use of the state secrets doctrine in cases involving enemy combatants ought to be subjected to further review in order to ensure that it is not utilized in a way that protects the U.S. government from allegations of wrongdoing. R. (Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sheds light on the problems associated with the doctrine’s use in its analysis of the validity of disclosure of evidence pertaining to an individual detained as an enemy combatant. The reasoning by the English Court of Appeal suggests that there was no real threat to either U ...


What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate: An Approach For Evaluating Credibility In America's Multilingual Courtrooms, Daniel J. Procaccini Jan 2011

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate: An Approach For Evaluating Credibility In America's Multilingual Courtrooms, Daniel J. Procaccini

Boston College Third World Law Journal

In the American justice system, the jury is the ultimate and exclusive finder of fact. In particular, credibility determinations are sacrosanct, and no witness is permitted to “invade the province of the jury” by testifying as to another party’s credibility. This rule is strictly enforced despite being thoroughly discredited by behavioral research on the ability of jurors to detect deception. In the modern multilingual courtroom, this rule places linguistic minorities at a distinct disadvantage. The communication gap between cultures is vast, and courtroom interpretation suffers from many well-documented inadequacies that can profoundly affect a fact-finder’s conclusions about a ...