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

Evidence Commons

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

University of Richmond Law Review

Articles 31 - 60 of 79

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin Jan 1995

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be ...


Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite Jan 1994

Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite

University of Richmond Law Review

In Frye v. United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed a trial court's exclusion of lie detector test results on the ground that such tests had not been "generally accepted" by the scientific community. The Frye rule, or "general acceptance" standard, quickly became the dominant test for the admission of scientific evidence. Decided in 1923, Frye governed evidentiary decisions in a majority of federal circuits for the next seventy years. The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, however, prompted several judges to question the validity of Frye. Since the enactment of ...


Money Laundering And Drug Trafficking: A Question Of Understanding The Elements Of The Crime And The Use Of Circumstantial Evidence, Thomas M. Dibiagio Jan 1994

Money Laundering And Drug Trafficking: A Question Of Understanding The Elements Of The Crime And The Use Of Circumstantial Evidence, Thomas M. Dibiagio

University of Richmond Law Review

Drug trafficking in the United States generates millions of dollars in cash profits daily. The cash generated from narcotics trafficking usually follows one of two distinct paths. Domestically, the profits are converted into usable currency by disguising the association between the cash and the narcotics enterprise. Monies not spent domestically are transferred back to the nar- cotics source or drug cartel to be enjoyed by the drug traffickers and to provide operating capital for the enterprise. This conversion and transfer process has become known commonly as money laundering.


University Of Richmond Law Review Jan 1990

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend Jan 1990

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

The past year has brought a variety of appellate court decisions (and a few legislative actions) in the evidence area. Some of these are merely affirmations of well-established principles; others answer questions about evidence law which have troubled lawyers and judges in the Commonwealth for some time. And, inevitably, some of them raise questions in areas once thought to be definite and certain.


University Of Richmond Law Review Jan 1989

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend Jan 1989

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

The past year has brought a number of cases which have supplemented and clarified existing Virginia law. The Court of Appeals of Virginia has produced many of these decisions in the exercise of its initial appellate jurisdiction, but the docket of the Supreme Court of Virginia has also generated some important holdings in the evidence area.


The Newsman's Confidential Source Privilege In Virginia, Phillip Randolph Roach Jr. Jan 1988

The Newsman's Confidential Source Privilege In Virginia, Phillip Randolph Roach Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The two hundredth anniversary celebration of the United States Constitution in 1987 provided an excellent opportunity to reflect upon how we now interpret the political doctrines that influenced the founding fathers in forming our government. At the time of the American Revolution, the basic tenets and freedoms that were written into the Declaration of Independence, and later incorporated into the Bill of Rights through the efforts of James Madison and George Mason of Virginia were considered essential human rights.


University Of Richmond Law Review Jan 1988

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend Jan 1988

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

In terms of evidence legislation, the most significant development of the past year may be what did not happen in Virginia. In late 1987 the Supreme Court of Virginia, following a long period of careful study, recommended against the adoption of a statutory code of evidence for Virginia. In announcing the court's conclusion, Chief Justice Carrico cited a passage from the 1987 Annual Survey of VirginiaLaw, which stated: "When it comes to the formulation of rules of evidence, the common-law system of judge-made rules, supplemented by a steady flow of case opinions from competent appellate courts, is far superior ...


Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend Jan 1987

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

During 1986-1987, Virginia evidence law has been expanded and clarified. The Court of Appeals has proved to be an important source of evidentiary decisions, and the Supreme Court of Virginia has provided needed guidance in several areas.


Voice Spectrography Evidence: Approaches To Admissibility, Sharon E. Gregory Jan 1986

Voice Spectrography Evidence: Approaches To Admissibility, Sharon E. Gregory

University of Richmond Law Review

The admissibility of the results of voiceprint' analysis as evidence in a criminal trial has received a great deal of attention in the last ten years, both from legal scholars and in the courts. Although a relative newcomer to the field of forensic science, voice spectrography is not a recent development in the field of evidence; Wigmore foresaw the use of a voiceprint as early as 1937, when he suggested that the individuality of a person's voice provided a possible means of speaker identification.


Improving Expert Testimony, Jack B. Weinstein Jan 1986

Improving Expert Testimony, Jack B. Weinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

Our real world outside the ivory towers of academia and the courts grows more and more complex. The law's use of expert witnesses has expanded at a pace reflective of society's reliance on specialized knowledge. Hardly a case of importance is tried today in the federal courts without the involvement of a number of expert witnesses.


Spoliation: Civil Liability For Destruction Of Evidence, Andrea H. Rowse Jan 1985

Spoliation: Civil Liability For Destruction Of Evidence, Andrea H. Rowse

University of Richmond Law Review

Intentional destruction of evidence has become a serious legal problem. Recently, the A.H. Robins Company was accused of intentionally destroying incriminating documents relevant to Dalkon Shield litigation. Even documents the court ordered to be preserved were allegedly destroyed by an attorney representing the company. The A.H. Robins Company is not the only corporation accused of intentionally destroying evidence. An attorney representing the Eastman-Kodak Company in an antitrust suit admitted that he destroyed documents relating to the litigation.


The Evidentiary Use Of The Hla Blood Test In Virginia, Linda L. Lemmon, Lynn K. Murphy Jan 1985

The Evidentiary Use Of The Hla Blood Test In Virginia, Linda L. Lemmon, Lynn K. Murphy

University of Richmond Law Review

In 1966 Virginia enacted legislation, now section 20-61.2 of the Code of Virginia, providing for the admission into evidence of the results of blood tests in cases involving questions of paternity. In 1982, a second statute, section 20-61.1 of the Code of Virginia, was amended to permit the use of genetic blood grouping tests, including the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) test, as evidence of paternity in child support proceedings. With the enactment of these two statutes, Virginia has joined a growing number of states which recognize the accuracy and reliability of the HLA test in establishing paternity.


Nix V. Williams: The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Edward M. Macon Jan 1985

Nix V. Williams: The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Edward M. Macon

University of Richmond Law Review

In Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception allows the prosecution to introduce illegally obtained evidence at trial upon a showing that such evidence would inevitably have been obtained, even without the police misconduct. The Supreme Court rejected the imposition of a second prong on the inevitable discovery exception which would have required the government to prove the absence of bad faith. The purpose of the inevitable discovery exception is to prevent the "setting aside [of] convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct."


The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: Is The Trier Of Fact Entitled To Hear It?, Joseph M. Reisman Jan 1985

The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: Is The Trier Of Fact Entitled To Hear It?, Joseph M. Reisman

University of Richmond Law Review

The fundamental goal of our adversarial system of litigation is to arrive at the truth through a fair presentation of the evidence. However, in a criminal proceeding material evidence is frequently not as available to the defense as it is to the prosecuting attorney. Consequently, rules have been developed which not only aid the defense in obtaining relevant information, but also assist the prosecution in fulfilling its ethical and constitutional obligations, chief among which is to see that justice and due process are upheld.


Admissibility Of Written Standards As Evidence Of The Standard Of Care In Medical And Hospital Negligence Actions In Virginia, Gwen M. Schockemoehl Jan 1984

Admissibility Of Written Standards As Evidence Of The Standard Of Care In Medical And Hospital Negligence Actions In Virginia, Gwen M. Schockemoehl

University of Richmond Law Review

The standard of care in a medical negligence action represents the duty which the defendant physician, nurse, hospital or other health care provider owes to the patient. In Virginia, it is that degree of care and skill possessed by the reasonably prudent practitioner of the same specialty in this state. This standard is an elusive one at best. While learned treatises and journal articles assist in determining the standard, in practice the plaintiff offers experts who state, based on their knowledge, training, and experience that the standard of care requires the defendant to provide a particular type of care which ...


Winfield V. Commonwealth: The Application Of The Virginia Rape Shield Statute, Philip L. Hatchett Jan 1984

Winfield V. Commonwealth: The Application Of The Virginia Rape Shield Statute, Philip L. Hatchett

University of Richmond Law Review

In Winfield v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the state's recently enacted rape shield statute could not restrict or infringe upon the defendant's sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to confront his accusers. In overruling the trial judge, the court stated that section 18.2-67.7 of the Code of Virginia actually expanded the admissibility of evidence related to specific prior sexual conduct of the prosecutrix. By this ruling, Virginia has joined a minority of jurisdictions which have refused to recognize the special dilemma of the prosecutrix in a rape trial and to grant ...


Admissibility Of "Day In The Life" Films In Virginia, Mahlon G. Funk Jr., Harry J. Hicks Iii Jan 1984

Admissibility Of "Day In The Life" Films In Virginia, Mahlon G. Funk Jr., Harry J. Hicks Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years, audiovisual technology has taken an increasingly prominent position in courtroom procedures. Defense attorneys have traditionally introduced motion pictures of allegedly injured plaintiffs caught in some intense physical activity. More recently, courts have allowed the use of audiovisual depositions, which afford scrutiny of the characteristics and mannerisms of deposed witnesses. In the midst of this evidentiary trend, plaintiffs' counsel now frequently seek admission of "day in the life" films. Such films purport to depict for the jury in graphic detail the effects that a severe personal injury can have on the plaintiff's life. Admission of these films ...


The Use Of Scientific Evidence In Rape Prosecutions, John T. Tucker Iii Jan 1984

The Use Of Scientific Evidence In Rape Prosecutions, John T. Tucker Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

Rape is defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a female without her consent." The crime has three basic elements: lack of consent, penetration, and identification of the assailant. Successful rape prosecutions are increasingly utilizing scientific evidence to investigate and prove the elements of rape. The purpose of this paper is to explore the many uses of scientific evidence with an eye towards providing a useful checklist to aid attorneys involved in a rape prosecution.


Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson Jan 1983

Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson

University of Richmond Law Review

If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This ...


The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy Jan 1983

The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy

University of Richmond Law Review

The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.


Discovery Of Penalties, W. Hamilton Bryson Jan 1981

Discovery Of Penalties, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

It is a well-established and fundamental principle of justice that no one may be compelled to subject himself to punishments nor to give evidence leading to that result. Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum is an ancient maxim. It was written directly into the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, which states that in all "criminal prosecutions" no one can "be compelled to give evidence against himself." This idea was also incorporated into the United States Constitution in 1791 through the fifth amendment.


Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams Jan 1981

Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams

University of Richmond Law Review

On December 31, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the landmark Privacy Act of 1974 into law. One of the key concepts of the Act is the principle of disclosure limitation, which limits the ability of the federal government to disclose the contents of per- sonal records in its possession. In the words of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, this principle "is designed to pre- vent.., the wrongful disclosure and use of personal files held by Federal agencies."


The Status Of The Third Party Confession In Virginia: In Search Of A Trustworthiness Standard, Donna J. Katos Jan 1980

The Status Of The Third Party Confession In Virginia: In Search Of A Trustworthiness Standard, Donna J. Katos

University of Richmond Law Review

The issue of third party confessions generates great controversy. The basic inquiry is, should confessions allegedly uttered by persons other than the defendant be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial? If so, under what conditions? How much discretion should a trial judge be afforded in determining whether this evidence should be admitted to exculpate a person charged with murder, armed robbery, or rape? Should the trial judge or the jury determine the reliability of the witness, the declarant, or the content of the confession itself? These considerations, in addition to due process arguments, have troubled criminal courts, legislators, and ...


Exploring The Limits Of Brady V. Maryland: Criminal Discovery As A Due Process Right In Access To Police Investigations And State Crime Laboratories, Walter H. Ohar Jan 1980

Exploring The Limits Of Brady V. Maryland: Criminal Discovery As A Due Process Right In Access To Police Investigations And State Crime Laboratories, Walter H. Ohar

University of Richmond Law Review

Why not criminal discovery? This question has been posited by legal scholars and learned jurists alike since the liberalization of discovery methods under the modern codes of civil procedure. As inexact as the term criminal discovery may be and, according to its critics, as inapplicable as discovery may be in the criminal context, there is little doubt that the current trend is the expansion of that which is discoverable by either side prior to a criminal trial. In fact, criminal discovery has developed into something more than a problem of procedure to be resolved by the individual jurisdictions in piecemeal ...


Book Reviews, Edward S. Graves, David L. Ross Jan 1979

Book Reviews, Edward S. Graves, David L. Ross

University of Richmond Law Review

These are book reviews from 1979.


Federal Court Rules Virginia Law Allows Evidence Of Non-Use Of Seat Belt, William H. Robinson Jr., Richard Cullen Jan 1978

Federal Court Rules Virginia Law Allows Evidence Of Non-Use Of Seat Belt, William H. Robinson Jr., Richard Cullen

University of Richmond Law Review

A pretrial evidentiary ruling by a Virginia federal district court judge in an automobile crashworthy products liability case permits the manufacturer-defendant to introduce evidence of non-use of a seat belt on the issue of damages.


The Fifth Amendment And The Production Of Documents: A New Rationale, Lucretia C. Irby Jan 1977

The Fifth Amendment And The Production Of Documents: A New Rationale, Lucretia C. Irby

University of Richmond Law Review

During its last term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving the production of documents and papers; one involved the use of a search warrant, the other a subpoena duces tecum. Both cases raised the fifth amendment issues. In both instances, the Supreme Court found no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination.