Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons^™

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Confession Obsession: How To Protect Minors In Interrogations, Cindy Chau

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

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 …

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …

A Witness To Justice, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

In the 1988 film The Accused, a young woman named Sarah Tobias is gang raped on a pinball machine by three men while a crowded bar watches. The rapists cut a deal with the prosecutor. Sarah's outrage at the deal convinces the assistant district attorney to prosecute members of the crowd that cheered on and encouraged the rape. This film shows how Sarah Tobias, a woman with little means and less experience, intuits that according to the law rape victims are incredible witnesses to their own victimization. The film goes on to critique what the right kind of witness would …

It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, no uniform approach exists in determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction as a technique to impeach a witness. This lack of uniformity leads to significant consequences for the parties and poses a potential prejudicial effect on the truthful character of a witness. Furthermore, there is currently no bright-line judicial standard when evaluating the admissibility of certain prior convictions. Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Theus v. State provided a non-exhaustive set of factors for trial judges to consider, the court has yet to clarify particular aspects of how to properly apply Texas Rule …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Truth Machines And Consequences: The Light And Dark Sides Of 'Accuracy' In Criminal Justice, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Punishment Evidence: Grunsfeld Ten Years Later., Edward L. Wilkinson

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article deals with the admissible evidence during the punishment phase of a non-capital trial in Texas. In 1989, the Texas Legislature amended Article 37.07, Section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to widen the scope of evidence admissible during the punishment phase of a non-capital trial. Grunsfel v. State, the leading case, the Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the statute so narrowly as to render the changes meaningless. In 1993, the legislature amended the statute a second time; it provided for a more expansive range of evidence to be introduced, but deleted a critical definition of what …

It Is Not So Simply Because An Expert Says It Is So: The Reliability Of Gang Expert Testimony Regarding Membership In Criminal Street Gangs: Pushing The Limits Of Texas Rule Of Evidence 702., Placido G. Gomez

St. Mary's Law Journal

The mechanisms developed by the criminal justice system addressing the criminal activities of street gangs, for the most part, have proved ineffective. The evolution of gangs, their complex structure, and multipurpose focus keep them one step ahead of law enforcement. The most recent weapon created to fight the war on gangs, the civil injunction, suffers from numerous inadequacies. One concern is that civil injunctions raise numerous constitutional concerns. Another is that these injunctions fall short of constitutional demands. Furthermore, the practical implementation of the injunction forces an analysis of the reliability of the gang expert’s testimony. This Article proposes courts …

Texas Rule Of Evidence 503: Defining Scope Of Employment For Corporations Comment., Craig W. Saunders

St. Mary's Law Journal

The attorney-corporate client privilege should be regarded as encompassing only communications made to the corporation’s counsel by employees in the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the merger of the Civil and Criminal Rules of Evidence. The merger became effective on March 1, 1998 and is now known as the Texas Rules of Evidence. Although the civil and criminal rules often mirror each other, one monumental change is in the new version of Rule 503. This new version significantly alters the analysis used in a corporate context and determines …

Right To Confrontation

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …