Evidence Commons^™

Anything You Say (Or Like, Repost, And Quote) Can Be Used Against You, Alexandra Heyl

Catholic University Law Review

Social media allows users to exchange thoughts and ideas without saying a single word. Whether a user “likes” “reposts” or “quotes” third-party content, a user publicly interacts with content authored by someone else with the click of a button. Is this online activity more akin to a user making a statement, adopting a third-party’s statement, or not making a statement at all? Does it matter? Only certain statements can be used against you at trial. Federal Rule of Evidence (“Federal Rule”) 802(a) provides that “hearsay” is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. According to Federal …

State Spoliation Claims In Federal District Courts, Jeffrey A. Parness

Catholic University Law Review

The increasing amounts of electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to civil litigation, and the ease of their loss, caused federal lawmakers explicitly to address the possible consequences of certain pre-suit or post-suit ESI losses. These lawmakers acted in both 2006 and 2015 through Federal Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e). But they acted only on certain ESI. Their actions have prompted increasing attention to the significant risks of pre-suit and post-suit losses of all ESI, and of non-ESI, otherwise discoverable in civil actions. In addition, their actions have spurred increasing attention to the availability of substantive law claims involving spoliation of information …

The Attorney-Client Privilege And Former Employees, Douglas R. Richmond

Catholic University Law Review

Attorney-client relationships are infused with confidentiality, and the attorney-client privilege is critical to the protection of sensitive and important communications between clients and their lawyers. Organizational clients, like individuals, are entitled to assert the attorney-client privilege concerning communications that fall within its scope.

In the organizational context, a common problem is determining who among the entity’s employees speaks on its behalf, such that communications between the entity’s lawyers and those employees may be protected against discovery by the organization’s adversaries and other third parties. And, of course, as organizations experience the inevitable turnover in their workforces, another issue surfaces: when, …

Federal Criminal Defendants Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire? Brady And The United States Attorney’S Office, Vida B. Johnson

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court decided Brady v. Maryland in an effort to ensure fair trials and fair outcomes. The Brady decision requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding guilt of the defendant. The Brady rule is meant to ensure innocent defendants are not convicted for crimes they did not commit. This rule should have unanimous support from both prosecution and defense teams, and yet Brady violations continue to occur within prosecutor offices around the country.

No offender highlights the short comings of the current system more so than the United States Attorney’s Office. Since the Brady decision, the USAO has repeated …

Inmates’ E-Mails With Their Attorneys: Off-Limits For The Government?, Amelia H. Barry

Catholic University Law Review

The attorney-client privilege is vital to inmates who otherwise have limited opportunities for private communications in prison. Traditionally, inmates have only been able to communicate with their attorneys via in-person visits, phone calls, and mailed letters. As federal inmates have begun using e-mail to converse with their attorneys, courts have had to determine if these conversations are protected by the attorney-client privilege. This Comment discusses courts’ approaches to this question, many of which have found that inmates’ e-mail communications with their attorneys are not privileged because by using the federal prison e-mail system, which warns users that conversations can be …

Can’T Touch This? Making A Place For Touch Dna In Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes, Victoria Kawecki

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Secrets Allowed: A Prosecutor’S Obligation To Disclose Inadmissible Evidence, Abigail B. Scott

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Return Of “Voodoo Information”: A Call To Resist A Heightened Authentication Standard For Evidence Derived From Social Networking Websites, Richard Fox

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.