Evidence Commons^™

Vertical Restraints, Dealers With Power, And Antitrust Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Leegin decision has now brought the rule of reason to all purely vertical intrabrand distribution restraints. But the rule of reason does not mean per se legality and occasions for anticompetitive vertically imposed restraints may still arise. Of all those that have been suggested the most plausible are vertical restraints imposed at the behest of a powerful dealer or group (cartel) of dealers.

Although a vertical distribution restraint resembles a dealer cartel in that both limit intraband competition, a manufacturer restraining the distribution of its product shuns the excess dealer profits a dealer cartel would seek. Accordingly, …

The Distortionary Effect Of Evidence On Primary Behavior, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

Summary Of Cramer V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 38, Justin Shiroff

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers two appeals concerning NRS 50.320, which permits the use of an affidavit to prove a person’s blood-alcohol content in certain proceedings, including driver’s license revocation hearings, by a person who has been previously qualified to testify as an expert witness by a district court.

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan

Faculty Publications and Presentations

An inquiry that seeks truth by accepting only natural answers excludes the possibility of the sacred or supernatural, building a wall that forecloses a complete exploration for the truth it seeks. Without analysis, critics dismiss sources presenting supernatural explanations, and those who believe sacred works have no factual foundation accept without investigation any popular theory that appears attractive. The rules of evidence expressly seek truth, wherever it lies. Noted legal scholar Simon Greenleaf used evidentiary principles to demonstrate the factual credibility of the Gospels in his Testimony of the Evangelists. This Article examines Greenleaf’s analysis, applying current rules of evidence …

Advocacy In The Court Of Public Opinion, Installment Two: How Far Should Corporate Attorneys Go, Michele M. Destefano

Articles

Today, legal controversies are tried in the court of public opinion as much as in any court of law. Corporate lawyers' traditional tendency, however, has been to attempt to isolate legal activities from public relations activities. Accordingly, when providing legal advice, they have viewed media considerations as separate. Historically corporate counsels' typical media strategy often consisted of no more than, "no comment." Given today's saturated media culture, this is no longer a viable strategy. Indeed, it appears that some corporate lawyers are adapting to the new media environment and attempting to help their clients manage the public relations impact of …

When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

Fact-finding at the international tribunals is not as precise as we think. Nancy Combs, Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, explores this in her new book 'Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions'.

Criminal Practice Developments In Maryland Evidence Law And Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper was prepared as a handout for a presentation given on July 9th., 2010 to staff at the Harford County Public Defender’s Office, Bel Air, MD. The specific sections of the paper are: Discovery of Witnesses’ Identities: Protective Orders; Jury Selection; Communications from Jurors; Preservation of the Record: Rules 4-323, 5-103, and 5-702; Judicial Notice: Rule 5-201; Balancing Risk of Unfair Prejudice and Confusion against Probative Value: Rule 5-403; Character Evidence; Fifth Amendment Privilege: Miranda; Competency of Witnesses: Rule 5-601; Impeachment by Prior Convictions: Rule 5-609; Questioning by Court: Rule 5-614; Expert Testimony: Rules 5-702 – 5-706; Hearsay; The …

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.

Summary Of Thomas V. Hardwick, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 16, Amanda Hogeg

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A multi-faceted appeal from jury verdict entered in favor of defense in wrongful death suit.

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 1 - Declaration Of Jonathan B. Oblak (Counsel For Google), Jonathan Oblak

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 2 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso (Counsel For Google), Margret Caruso

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Google's Opposition To Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 3 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 44 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 45 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

The article begins with a discussion of the historical development and jurisprudential bases for jurisdictional discovery, then analyzes the two major structural problems with the device, namely (1) the lack of any identifiable standard regarding when jurisdictional discovery will be ordered and (2) the absence of any understanding about the proper scope of such discovery. Next, the article describes the root causes of these structural inadequacies and proposes several ways to address the root concerns, relying on a new line of Supreme Court precedent (including Ashcroft v. Iqbal) as well as analogies to other common law jurisdictions. The paper concludes …

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 4 - Plaintiff Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 3 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Response To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 5 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Arrival Then Denial: Interpreting §203(A) Of The Clean Air Act, Analyzing Evidentiary Challenges, & Assessing Conflicting Statutory Directives, Jesse Levine

Distinguished Student Research Papers

An “arrival then denial” occurs when uncertified engines arrive at a U.S. port, but are denied entry to the U.S. by Customs & Border Protection (Customs). Why does this matter? In most cases these uncertified engines are sent back to the country of origin. However, due to resource constraints, a sizeable number of uncertified engines slip past Customs and enter the U.S. each year. Uncertified engines, without proper controls, have been estimated to emit at least 30% more emissions than their certified counterparts. Such emissions exacerbate climate change, acid rain, and air quality generally. EPA attorneys assert that their best …

Crossing Over: Why Attorneys (And Judges) Should Not Be Able To Cross-Examine Witnesses Regarding Their Immigration Statuses For Impeachment Purposes, Colin Miller

NULR Online

You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking a Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no …

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 1 - Transcript Of Motions Hearing, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Thinking Like A Public Interest Lawyer: Theory, Practice, And Pedagogy, Jocelyn Simonson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Crime Music, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Wired: What We've Learned About Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.