Evidence Commons^™

"Hired Guns": Establishing The Scope Of The Proper Cross-Examination And Argument Relating To Expert Witness' Compensation In Criminal Trials, Michael C. Kovac

Georgia Criminal Law Review

The outcomes of criminal cases can turn on the credibility of the parties’ expert witnesses. The compensation such experts receive in exchange for their work on cases can undermine their credibility, as it provides the experts with a financial incentive that might bias them in favor of the parties who retain them. While concerns with such bias have existed for decades, courts have been inconsistent in the defining the permissible scope of cross-examination and argument on the issue. Some courts have unduly curtailed such cross-examination and argument. Courts have also been inconsistent in their views of whether calling such expert …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Len Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them. So how do we get there?

The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack

Michigan Law Review

Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an assessment of moral character …

Confrontation In The Age Of Plea Bargaining [Comments], William Ortman

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them.

So how do we get there?

Expert Witness Malpractice, Michael Flynn

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Review Of Privileged Documents In Trial And Deposition Preparation Of Witnesses In New York: When, If Ever, Will The Privilege Be Lost?, Michael J. Hutter

Pace Law Review

This article will examine New York’s refreshing recollection doctrine in the context of trial and deposition preparation of witnesses as to the consequences of the witness’s review of privileged writings. Initially, Part II will discuss Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The discussion will serve as the backdrop for the analysis of the above-mentioned issues under New York law. Part III will then examine the refreshing recollection doctrine as developed and applied to testifying witnesses at a trial or deposition by the New York courts. The examination will point out the doctrine’s key rules. Part IV discusses the …

Litigation Academy Helps Lawyers Hone Skills 4-30-2018, Katie Mulvaney, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Reliability Of Expert Evidence In International Disputes, Matthew W. Swinehart

Michigan Journal of International Law

Part I of this article traces the historical trends in the use of expert evidence in international disputes, from the scattered reliance on experts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to the ubiquity of experts in modern disputes. With that perspective, Part II examines how decision makers have attempted to ensure reliability of the expert evidence that is flooding the evidentiary records of international disputes, while Part III outlines the many problems that still remain. Finally, Part IV proposes a non-exhaustive and nonbinding checklist of questions for analyzing the reliability of any type of expert evidence.

Newsroom: Kuckes On Grand Jury Secrecy 8/30/2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr

Michigan Law Review

Complex valuations of assets, companies, government programs, damages, and the like cannot be done without expertise, yet judges routinely pick an arbitrary value that falls somewhere between the extreme numbers suggested by competing experts. This creates costly uncertainty and undermines the legitimacy of the court. Proposals to remedy this well-recognized difficulty have become increasingly convoluted. As a result, no solution has been effectively adopted and the problem persists. This Article suggests that the valuation dilemma stems from a misconception of the inquiry involved. Courts have treated valuation as its own special type of inquiry distinct from traditional fact-finding. We show …

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the Wigmore treatise was the dominant force in organizing, setting out, and explaining the American law of evidence. Since then, the first two of those roles have been taken over in large part by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules). And the third has been performed most notably by the Weinstein treatise. Judge Jack Weinstein was present at the creation of the Rules and before. Though he first made his name in Civil Procedure, while still a young man he joined two of the stalwarts of evidence law, Edmund Morgan and …

Evidentiary Use Of Photographic Identification: Is It Time For New York To Reevaluate Its Singular Exception?, Daniela Giordano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hiding The Elephant (How The Psychological Techniques Of Magicians Can Be Used To Manipulate Witnesses At Trial), Sydney A. Beckman

Sydney A. Beckman

In 1917 Harry Houdini performed a single, yet incredible, illusion; “[u]nder the bright spotlights of New York’s Theatre Hippodrome, he made a live elephant disappear.” In 1983 David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty Disappear in front of both a live and a national television audience. To be sure, neither the elephant nor Lady Liberty actually disappeared. But from the perspective of the audience they did, indeed, disappear. So which is correct? Did they, or didn’t they?

Trial Lawyers and Magicians share many of the same talents and skills. Misdirection, misinformation, selective-attention, ambiguity, verbal manipulation, body language interpretation, and physical …

Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged …

Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …

Expert Mining And Required Disclosure, Jonah B. Gelbach

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I …

Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the U.S. American trial system proof mainly consists of live witnesses presented in open court under oath before the judge, jury, and parties, subject to perjury laws. Cross-examination of the witnesses in that setting is the principal (though not the only) form of testing their reliability. It is for these reasons that we have a rule against hearsay (second-hand reporting in court of what someone has said outside of court).

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

The Admissibility Of Hypnotically Enhanced Testimony In Criminal Trials, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

No abstract provided.

People V. Rojas: The Expanding Concept Of Unavailability, Brian Wade Uhl

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Timeless Trial Strategies And Tactics: Lessons From The Classic Claus Von Bülow Case, Daniel M. Braun

Daniel M Braun

In this new Millennium -- an era of increasingly complex cases -- it is critical that lawyers keep a keen eye on trial strategy and tactics. Although scientific evidence today is more sophisticated than ever, the art of effectively engaging people and personalities remains prime. Scientific data must be contextualized and presented in absorbable ways, and attorneys need to ensure not only that they correctly understand jurors, judges, witnesses, and accused persons, but also that they find the means to make their arguments truly resonate if they are to formulate an effective case and ultimately realize justice. A decades-old case …

Narrative, Truth, And Trial, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

This Article critically evaluates the relationship between constructing narratives and achieving factual accuracy at trials. The story model of adjudication— according to which jurors process testimony by organizing it into competing narratives—has gained wide acceptance in the descriptive work of social scientists and currency in the courtroom, but it has received little close attention from legal theorists. The Article begins with a discussion of the meaning of narrative and its function at trial. It argues that the story model is incomplete, and that “legal truth” emerges from a hybrid of narrative and other means of inquiry. As a result, trials …

Witnesses With Multiple Personality Disorder, Jacqueline R. Kanovitz, Bob S. Kanovitz, James P. Bloch

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unreliability Of Testimony From A Witness With Multiple Personality Disorder (Mpd): Why Courts Must Acknowledge The Connection Between Hypnosis And Mpd And Adopt A “Per Se” Rule Of Exclusion For Mpd Testimony, Mark Anthony Miller

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Following The Rules: Exclusion Of Witness, Sequestration, And No-Consultation Orders, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this Article, Professor Underwood discusses the varying application of Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides for the exclusion of witnesses. He explains that varying application of Rule 615 and state evidence rules following Rule 615's language creates misunderstandings at trial. Thus, it is important to know not only the federal and local rules but also the "way things are done" in a particular court.