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

Evidence Commons

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

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

The Ninth Circuit's Redundant Remand In E.M. V. Pajaro Unified Valley School District Sends An Important Message, Edward Dunn Sep 2012

The Ninth Circuit's Redundant Remand In E.M. V. Pajaro Unified Valley School District Sends An Important Message, Edward Dunn

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

On July 14, 2011, in E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded a case because the district court applied an improper standard in determining whether a clinical psychologist’s report constituted “additional evidence” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit broadly defined the “additional evidence” courts must consider in hearing IDEA claims.


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 ...


Dna As The Twenty-First Century Fingerprint: Approval Of Dna Collection Upon Arrest In United States V. Mitchell, Irina Sivachenko Apr 2012

Dna As The Twenty-First Century Fingerprint: Approval Of Dna Collection Upon Arrest In United States V. Mitchell, Irina Sivachenko

Boston College Law Review

On July 25, 2011, in United States v. Mitchell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that taking a DNA sample from a pre-trial arrestee did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court did so by holding that taking DNA profiles serves only to identify arrestees, and thus, like fingerprinting, is an acceptable “booking” practice. Unlike fingerprints, however, DNA profiles contain significant personal information beyond that necessary for mere identification. This Comment argues, therefore, that to determine the reasonableness of this intrusion onto arrestees’ expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, courts must consider both the ...