Evidence Commons^™

19. Child Witnesses., Thomas D. Lyon, Kelly Mcwilliams, Shanna Williams

Thomas D. Lyon

61. The Relation Between Young Children’S False Statements And Response Latency, Executive Functioning, And Truth–Lie Understanding., Shanna Williams, Elizabeth C. Ahern, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

60. The Effects Of Promising To Tell The Truth, The Putative Confession, And Recall And Recognition Questions On Maltreated And Non-Maltreated Children’S Disclosure Of A Minor Transgression., Jodi A. Quas, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

State Searches, Federal Cases, And Choice Of Law: Just A Little Respect, John B. Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

The Forensic Community Can Educate Lawyers, Judges, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

An Evidentiary Oddity: “Careful Habit” – Does The Law Of Evidence Embrace This Archaic/Modern Concept?, 43 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 293 (2017), Marc Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg

The concept of the “careful habit”[i] is intriguing. The law of evidence vigorously distinguishes between character evidence (largely inadmissible)[ii] and habit evidence (presumptively admissible).[iii] Character is understood as a propensity to act in a certain fashion[iv]—a person’s disposition. Habit is understood as non-volitional, repetitive specific conduct, in response to stimuli, over a rather lengthy period of time.[v] “Carefulness” is known by the law as a character trait.[vi] Carefulness should not be confused with habit, yet this confusion has occurred in multiple jurisdictions, many years ago and recently. This paper seeks to explore the development of the curious and anomalous concept …

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Absolute Immunity: General Principles And Recent Developments, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

The British Experience With Hearsay Reform: A Cautionary Tale, Mark S. Brodin

Mark S. Brodin

Among the proposals being considered by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Committee”) is the scrapping of the categorical exception regime for hearsay, leaving questions of reliability and admissibility ad hoc to district court judges along the lines of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 403 and 807. Over the past decades, the British have moved toward this approach, and it is the purpose of this Article to identify the lessons that can be learned from that experience, especially with regard to criminal prosecutions and the right of confrontation.

Small Cells, Big Problems: The Increasing Precision Of Cell Site Location Information And The Need For Fourth Amendment Protections, Robert M. Bloom, William T. Clark

Robert M. Bloom

The past fifty years has witnessed an evolution in technology advancement in police surveillance. Today, one of the essential tools of police surveillance is something most Americans carry with them in their pockets every day, the cell phone. Cell phones not only contain a huge repository of personal data, they also provide continuous surveillance of a person’s movement known as cell site location information (CSLI). In 1986, Congress sought to provide some privacy protections to CSLI in the Stored Communication Act. Although this solution may have struck the proper balance in an age when cell phones were a mere novelty …

59. Ask Versus Tell: Potential Confusion When Child Witnesses Are Questioned About Conversations, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kelly Mcwilliams, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus [2010] SGHC 7; Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v PP [2011] SGCA 52. Overview of the case: In PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus, the accused was charged with murder. He and the deceased had been in a tumultuous relationship, and the main evidence that connected the deceased’s death to the accused, apart from the fact that her body was found in the construction site that the accused worked at, was that DNA taken from her rectum tested positive for semen that matched his DNA.

Revisiting The Similar Fact Rule In Singapore: Public Prosecutor V. Mas Swan Bin Adnan And Another, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

The similar fact rule in Singapore—as with the law on any evidence law doctrine that can be found in both our Evidence Act and the common law—has required clarification for some time. This note, which discusses the latest local decision on the similar fact rule, considers if that decision is compatible with the Evidence Act and the various conceptualisations underlying the doctrine.

The 2012 Amendments To Singapore's Evidence Act: More Questions Than Answers As Regards Expert Opionion Evidence?, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

Singapore amended the expert opinion evidence provisions in its Evidence Act (EA) in 2012. The criteria for admissibility have been broadened, but the courts are now also expressly given the discretion to exclude relevant expert opinion evidence if it is ‘in the interests of justice’. This article explains why the 2012 amendments have raised more questions than answered them. First, Parliament did not appear to have properly appreciated the distinction—as conceptualised by the EA—between legal and logical relevance and relevance and admissibility. Second, it did not appear to have appreciated the distinction between general and specific relevance. Third, the introduction …

Re-Assessing The Evidentiary Regime Of The International Court Of Justice: A Case For Codifying Its Discretion To Exclude Evidence, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

Like many international tribunals, the International Court of Justice subscribes heavily to the principle of free admissibility of evidence. Neither its statute nor rules impose substantive restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, whether by way of exclusionary rules or an exclusionary discretion. Instead, the court’s practice has been to focus on evaluating and weighing the evidence after it has been admitted. There are certainly features of the ICJ that sets it apart from domestic courts and arguably justify such an approach: the ICJ is for settling disputes between sovereign states; it does not use a typical fact-finding system; its rules …

Redefining Relevancy And Exclusionary Discretion In Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’S Indian Evidence Act Of 1872: The Singapore Experiment And Lessons For Other Indian Evidence Act Jurisdictions, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

In many jurisdictions, the rules of evidence can often be instrumental in determining the outcome of a dispute. But to what extent can evidence law be controlled by codification, or is it better to leave its regulation and development to the judges via common law? In an attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated evidence statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore’s Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence, while new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse. However, it will be …

Reliability And Relevance As The Touchstones For Admissibility Of Evidence In Criminal Proceedings: Muhammad Bin Kadar V Pp [2011] 3 Slr 1205 [Case Note], Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

The Court of Appeal in Muhammad bin Kadar v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (“Kadar”) formally recognised the judicial discretion to exclude evidence as an integral part of the law on criminal evidence in Singapore. This discretion, the court held, would help ensure that all evidence coming before the court would be as reliable as possible. While this commentary agrees that the foundational basis for the exclusionary discretion doctrine is desirable, it suggests that there are difficulties with the application of the doctrine. An alternative approach that works around the difficulties is canvassed for consideration.

The Judicial Discretion To Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives From An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

Stephen’s ground-breaking Indian Evidence Act contained ideas that appear unfamiliar in the context of modern rules of evidence. Singapore is an Indian Evidence Act jurisdiction which has retained those ideas, such as the non-distinction between relevance and admissibility, the framing of exclusionary rules in inclusionary terms, and the prohibition against relying on common law developments inconsistent with the Evidence Act. These peculiarities should have presented obstacles to the applicability of the common law concept of the judicial discretion to exclude relevant evidence, but this has not been the case. In this article, I first suggest why Singapore courts might have …

Dealing With Unreliable Evidence, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor was the culmination of a case described by the Court of Appeal as “extraordinary” and “one of the longest in the Singapore judiciary’s annals”. Two brothers, Muhammad and Ismil, were alleged to have robbed and murdered an old woman in her own flat and in the presence of her bedridden husband. The brothers were both convicted by the High Court and sentenced to death. In acquitting Ismil of all charges, the Court of Appeal rendered a 207-paragraph judgment that canvassed many issues, but space constraints limits this note’s treatment to the issue of whether …

'In The Interests Of Justice' As The New Test To Exclude Relevant Evidence In Singapore: Anb V Anc [2014] Sghc 172; Wan Lai Ting V Kea Kah Kim [2014] Sghc 180, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, …

Old Blood, Bad Blood, And Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, And The Limits Of Bad Faith, Norman C. Bay

Norman Bay

Under the law of lost evidence, absent a showing of bad faith, no due process violation occurs when the police lose potentially exculpatory evidence. This is so even though the evidence may be critical to the defense and even though post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated more than 200 individuals. Ironically, the case that developed that rule of law, Arizona v. Youngblood, is founded on the conviction of an innocent man. This Article critically examines Youngblood and provides a conceptual framework for examining the constitutional right of access to evidence. Supreme Court precedent reflects two different, sometimes competing, visions of …

58. The Effects Of Secret Instructions And Yes/No Questions On Maltreated And Non-Maltreated Children’S Reports Of A Minor Transgression., Elizabeth C. Ahern, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kelly Mcwilliams, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

18. When Interviewing Children: A Review And Update., Karen J. Saywitz, Thomas D. Lyon, Gail S. Goodman

Thomas D. Lyon

An Evidentiary Oddity: “Careful Habit” -- Does The Law Of Evidence Embrace This Archaic/Modern Concept?, Marc D. Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg

57. Spatial Language, Question Type, And Young Children’S Ability To Describe Clothing: Legal And Developmental Implications., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kelly Mcwilliams, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon