Evidence Commons^™

In Search Of A Theory Of Public Memory: The State, The Individual, And Marcel Proust, Brian F. Havel

Brian Havel

This Article posits the existence and pervasiveness of an official public (or State) memory that is primarily constructed using public law devices and statements of official policy. While official public memory serves the purposes of social control and stability, it also seeks to mask contestation and is, accordingly, neither complete nor authentic. Using philosophical, scientific, and literary sources, this Article demonstrates how the affective (emotional) memory that is unique to individuals creates a permanent potential for contestation and authenticity and therefore sets a natural conceptual limit to the power of officially managed memory to contrive the past. To help establish …

No Means No: An Argument For The Expansion Of Rape Shield Laws To Cases Of Nonconsensual Pornography, Austin Vining

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article considers the impact of a hypothetical nonconsensual pornography victim’s previous sexual history on potential legal remedies, both criminal and civil. Due to jury bias and the difficulty in proving standard elements of many claims, the research shows that such a victim would likely be unsuccessful in court. This Article then turns to two legal concepts from related fields—the incremental harm doctrine and rape shield laws—and considers what effect their application would have on the hypothetical victim’s case. Ultimately, the author presents an argument for the logical expansion of rape shield laws to cases of nonconsensual pornography.

Leveling Felony Charges For Withholding Evidence, Jodi Nagzger

Jodi Nafzger

This Article addresses the intersection of the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8. Brady requires prosecutors to automatically disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession to the defense. ABA Model Rule 3.8 requires a prosecutor in a criminal case “to make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense.” The ABA issued a formal opinion in 2009 which concluded that the prosecutor’s ethical duty under 3.8 is broader in …

The Challenge Of Convincing Ethical Prosecutors That Their Profession Has A Brady Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

In recent decades, both the media and legal scholars have documented the widespread problem of prosecutors failing to disclose favorable evidence to the defense – so called Brady violations. Despite all of this documentation however, many ethical prosecutors reject the notion that the criminal justice system has a Brady problem. These prosecutors – ethical lawyers who themselves have not been accused of misconduct – believe that the scope of the Brady problem is exaggerated. Why do ethical prosecutors downplay the evidence that some of their colleagues have committed serious errors?

This essay, in honor of Professor Bennett Gershman, points to …

Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg

Georgia State University Law Review

The source of the applicable standard of care in a specific medical negligence claim is multifaceted. The testifying expert witness, when explaining the applicable standard of care, “would draw upon his own education and practical frame of reference as well as upon relevant medical thinking, as manifested by literature, educational resources and information available to practitioners, and experiences of similarly situated members of the profession.” Accordingly, in typical medical negligence litigation, the plaintiff’s expert witness testifying regarding the existence of and the defendant-physician’s deviation from the standard of care would be a physician. Why, then, have courts permitted non-physicians to …

Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …

O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.

This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …

The Silliness Of Magical Realism, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Relative plausibility, even after countless explanatory articles, remains an underdeveloped model bereft of underlying theory. Multivalent logic, a fully developed and accepted system of logic, comes to the same endpoint as relative plausibility. Multivalent logic would thus provide the missing theory, while it would resolve all the old problems of using traditional probability theory to explain the standards of proof as well as the new problems raised by the relative plausibility model. For example, multivalent logic resolves the infamous ‘conjunction paradox’ that traditional probability creates for itself, and which relative plausibility tries to sweep under the rug.

Yet Professors Allen …

Surprise Vs. Probability As A Metric For Proof, Edward K. Cheng, Matthew Ginther

Edward Cheng

In this Symposium issue celebrating his career, Professor Michael Risinger in Leveraging Surprise proposes using "the fundamental emotion of surprise" as a way of measuring belief for purposes of legal proof. More specifically, Professor Risinger argues that we should not conceive of the burden of proof in terms of probabilities such as 51%, 95%, or even "beyond a reasonable doubt." Rather, the legal system should reference the threshold using "words of estimative surprise" -asking jurors how surprised they would be if the fact in question were not true. Toward this goal (and being averse to cardinality), he suggests categories such …

Impeaching Lying Parties With Their Statements During Negotiation: Demysticizing The Public Policy Rationale Behind Evidence Rule 408 And The Mediation-Privilege Statutes, Lynne H. Rambo

Lynne H. Rambo

Virtually all American jurisdictions have laws—either rules of evidence or mediation-privilege statutes or both—that exclude from evidence statements that parties make during negotiations and mediations. The legislatures (and sometimes courts) that have adopted these exclusionary rules have invoked a public policy rationale: that parties must be able to speak freely to settle disputes, and they will not speak freely if their statements during negotiation can later be admitted against them. This rationale is so widely revered that many courts have relied on it to prohibit the use of negotiation statements to impeach, even when the inconsistency of the negotiation statement …

Policing The Admissibility Of Body Camera Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin, Shevarma Pemberton

Faculty Publications

Body cameras are sweeping the nation and becoming, along with the badge and gun, standard issue for police officers. These cameras are intended to ensure accountability for abusive police officers. But, if history is any guide, the videos they produce will more commonly be used to prosecute civilians than to document abuse. Further, knowing that the footage will be available as evidence, police officers have an incentive to narrate body camera videos with descriptive oral statements that support a later prosecution. Captured on an official record that exclusively documents the police officer’s perspective, these statements—for example, “he just threw something …

The Exclusionary Rule In The Age Of Blue Data, Andrew G. Ferguson

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Herring v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts reframed the Supreme Court's understanding of the exclusionary rule: "As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence." The open question remains: How can defendants demonstrate sufficient recurring or systemic negligence to warrant exclusion? The Supreme Court has never answered the question, although the absence of systemic or recurring problems has figured prominently in two recent exclusionary rule decisions. Without the ability to document recurring failures or patterns of police misconduct, courts can dismiss …

Conference On Proposed Amendments: Experts, The Rules Of Completeness, And Sequestration Of Witnesses

Fordham Law Review

This conference was held on October 19, 2018, at University of Denver Sturm College of Law under the sponsorship of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules. The transcript has been lightly edited. It represents the panelists’ individual views only and in no way reflects those of their affiliated firms, organizations, law schools, or the judiciary.

Policing The Admissibility Of Body Camera Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin, Shevarma Pemberton

Fordham Law Review

Body cameras are sweeping the nation and becoming, along with the badge and gun, standard issue for police officers. These cameras are intended to ensure accountability for abusive police officers. But, if history is any guide, the videos they produce will more commonly be used to prosecute civilians than to document abuse. Further, knowing that the footage will be available as evidence, police officers have an incentive to narrate body camera videos with descriptive oral statements that support a later prosecution. Captured on an official record that exclusively documents the police officer’s perspective, these statements—for example, “he just threw something …

Intrinsic Evidence: Do Utah Prosecutors Too Often Neglect This Avenue Of Admissibility?, Blake R. Hills

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Intrinsic Evidence: Do Utah Prosecutors Too Often Neglect This Avenue Of Admissibility?

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

67. The Utility Of Direct Questions In Eliciting Subjective Content From Children Disclosing Sexual Abuse., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Shanna Williams, Kelly Mcwilliams, Catherine Liang, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Legal Burdens Of Proof Under U.S. Law, Tsion Chudnovsky

Tsion Chudnovsky, JD

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Struggles: Legality, Legitimacy, And Social Mobilizations In The Catalan Political Conflict, Susana Narotzky

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Different kinds of evidence are put forward to make an argument and justify political action by agents situated in diverse social, cultural, and power positions. The Catalan political conflict is a case in point. The central Spanish government's arguments are mostly of a juridical nature and rest on the anti-constitutionality of the Catalan government and other civil society organizations' actions. Instead, most arguments of Catalan supporters of independence are based on historical interpretations of grievances referring to national institutions and identity. Supporters of independence, under the politically inspired actions of major civil society associations, have mobilized hundreds of thousands of …

Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.

This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …

Courts Increasingly Demand That Businesses Break The Law, Geoffrey Sant

Akron Law Review

United States courts are demanding that businesses break foreign laws at an exponentially increasing rate. A practice that was virtually unheard of only 30 years ago is now so widespread that U.S. courts are ordering foreign lawbreaking in the most trivial discovery matters. When a court receives a discovery request that violates a foreign law, it applies the 5-part Aérospatiale balancing test—a test where 4 of the 5 factors are left to the subjective decisions of the judge. By ordering foreign law breaking, our courts—often biased in favor of United States discovery rules—are encouraging abusive litigation tactics, undermining the rule …

66. Younger And Older Adults’ Lie-Detection And Credibility Judgments Of Children’S Coached Reports, Alison M. O'Connor, Thomas D. Lyon, Angela D. Evans

Thomas D. Lyon

Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.

Evidence Law: Convictions Based On Circumstantial Evidence, Binyamin Blum

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Preface To The Third Edition By The General Editor. Preface To The New Wigmore: A Treatise On Evidence: Selected Rules Of Limited Admissibility, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

As General Editor of this treatise, my principal job is to recruit an excellent team of authors; no one in the modern day could hope to replicate John Henry Wigmore's one-man show. David Leonard, not only a superb scholar but also an exemplary person through and through, was one of the first people I asked, and to my delight he joined the project. He tackled his assignment with great ability and broad vision--and also graciousness in dealing with a slew of editorial comments from me. With a degree of efficiency and industry that can perhaps best be described in this …

Should Judges Convict Based On Their Speculations Of Guilt?, Doron Menashe, Eyal Gruner

Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester

Journal Publications

Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the "warrant requirement," one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. The …

Victims Under Attack: North Carolina's Flawed Rule 609, Daniel R. Tilly

Scholarly Works

Evidence law in North Carolina senselessly punishes victims of domestic and sexual violence by broadly sanctioning witness impeachment with prior convictions – no matter the implicit prejudice to the witness or how little the conviction bears on credibility. The North Carolina approach is an outlier. Under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the use of conviction evidence for impeaching witness credibility is confined to felonies and crimes involving dishonest acts or false statements. Their use must also satisfy judicial balancing tests aimed at protecting against unfair prejudice to the witness. The majority of states take a similar or …

Driving The Drug War: Difficulties With Proper Detection Of Thc And Measurement Of Marijuana Intoxication For The Purposes Of Dui Prosecution, Sage La Rue Zitzkat

Dissertations and Honors Papers

No abstract provided.