Evidence Commons^™

Authenticating Digital Evidence, Paul W. Grimm, Daniel J. Capra, Gregory P. Joseph

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Implied Assertion Doctrine Applied To Legislative History, Noah Marks, Jessica Ranucci

Faculty Scholarship

This Article derives a new approach towards the use of legislative history to interpret statutes by adapting and applying the law of evidence. Courts use legislative history as hearsay evidence: out-of-court statements used for the truth of the matter asserted. Evidence law includes many exceptions under which hearsay becomes admissible. One such exception, the implied assertion exception, can be applied to courts' use of legislative history. Under this framework, legislative history can illuminate the interpretive enterprise, while many of the problems identified by opponents of legislative history are mitigated. After presenting the development of the implied assertion doctrine in evidence …

The Fragile Promise Of Open-File Discovery, Ben Grunwald

Faculty Scholarship

Under traditional rules of criminal discovery, defendants are entitled to little prosecutorial evidence and are thus forced to negotiate plea agreements and prepare for trial in the dark. In an effort to expand defendants’ discovery rights, a number of states have recently enacted “open-file” statutes, which require the government to share the fruits of its investigation with the defense. Legal scholars have widely supported these reforms, claiming that they level the playing field and promote judicial efficiency by decreasing trials and speeding up guilty pleas. But these predictions are based largely on intuition and anecdotal data without extended theoretical analysis …

Using Prior Consistent Statements To Rehabilitate Credibility Or To Prove Substantive Assertions Before And After The 2014 Amendment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Floralynn Einesman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) expanded the non-hearsay category of admissible prior consistent statements with FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) to include any statements counsel uses to rehabilitate a declarant’s credibility after that credibility has been attacked. FREV 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) require that a declarant testify and be subjected to cross-examination about the prior consistent statement. Under these rules, the time at which the declarant made the consistent statement and her reason for making it are critical.

When the declarant does not testify, however, under FRE 806 opposing counsel may still attack the declarant’s credibility. Under these circumstances, it is often challenging …