Evidence Commons^™

Equal Access To Evidence: The Case For The Defense Use Of Immunity For Essential Witnesses, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Right To Every Woman's Evidence, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

I am indeed honored to be here with you today, honored to be joining you next year as Iowa's first Mason Ladd Visiting Distinguished Professor of Law, and honored to be giving the first Mason Ladd Lecture. The honor lies not just in the recognition you accord me, but also in the linkage to the man in whose name this recognition is given.

Civil Procedure: Commentary, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Case For Jury Determination Of Search And Seizure Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In a criminal case the option to return a general verdict of acquittal invests the jury with the raw power to nullify many legal determinations, including the trial judge's ruling that a search is constitutional. While courts grudingly acknowledge the existence of an extra-legal jury nullification power, courts do not recognize any jury prerogative to determine the lawfulness of a search. The United States Supreme Court's discussion of the jury's role in interpreting and applying the fourth amendment consists of one terse statement that the legality of a search "is a question of fact and law for the court and …

Paradoxes, Gedanken Experiments And The Burden Of Proof: A Response To Dr. Cohen's Reply, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

This article responds to L. Jonathan Cohen's critique of the author's position regarding the problem of naked statistical evidence. Cohen argues that the kind of probability at work in litigation does not conform to the axioms of mathematical probability. The author responds by suggesting that the familiar theory of probability needs no revision to account for the reluctance of a few courts to permit plaintiffs to prevail on the strength of background statistics alone. One need not adopt Dr. Cohen's esoteric mathematical structure to explain the burden of proof in civil cases. The article shows that whether or not one …

The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On The Issue Of Eyewitness Identification In Criminal Trials, 2 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 59 (1981), Edward B. Arnolds, William K. Carroll, Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part V, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Mccormick On Evidence And The Concept Of Hearsay: A Critical Analysis Followed By Suggestions To Law Teachers, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Capacity To Contest A Search And Seizure: The Passing Of Old Rules And Some Suggestions For New Ones, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Slobogin examines recent Supreme Court decisions involving standing to challenge search and seizure violations, and argues that the Court's commitment to a "totality of the circumstances" approach has permitted erosion of fourth amendment protections. After concluding that these decisions provide little guidance to lower courts, Professor Slobogin offers a set of principles which will aid in analyzing the Court's direction.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Iv, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Rules Of Evidence: Part Iii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Protection For Private Papers, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Six Years After, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect since 1975. Six years of experience is not much time in which to assess such a complex and important body of law. Nevertheless, there is now some "evidence" of the impact of the Federal Rules on the various states and circuits.

The Rules do seem to have proved successful enough to stimulate widespread imitation. Approximately half the states in the United States have or will very shortly have evidence codes patterned substantially on the Rules, even down to their numbers. Many of the remaining states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have …

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …

Faces Without Features: The Surface Validity Of Criminal Inferences, Peter Lushing

Articles

This article will offer nonempirical grounds to show that instructed inferences operate as the dissenters believe, at least when the instruction does not explicitly refer to the evidence at trial, but to occurrences in general.