Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

5,136 Full-Text Articles 3,614 Authors 2,249,100 Downloads 143 Institutions

All Articles in Evidence

Faceted Search

5,136 full-text articles. Page 1 of 99.

Level The Playing Field: Advocating For The Removal Of Major League Baseball’S Prohibition On The Admissibility Of Statcast-Generated Sabermetrics As Evidence In Salary Arbitration Hearings, Christian Podest 2021 Pepperdine University

Level The Playing Field: Advocating For The Removal Of Major League Baseball’S Prohibition On The Admissibility Of Statcast-Generated Sabermetrics As Evidence In Salary Arbitration Hearings, Christian Podest

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper argues that Major League Baseball should amend its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to remove the outright ban on certain types of statistical evidence to help prove a player’s value. First, the paper briefly describes the history of the compensation system in the MLB and its evolution. Then, it details how final offer arbitration became the default mechanism for resolving compensation disputes between teams and players. The paper subsequently focuses on the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s carve-out of statistical evidence and notes the similarities and differences between Major League Baseball’s evidentiary standards governing salary arbitration hearings and ...


Science And Law: The Quest For The Neutral Expert Witness. A View From The Trenches, Carl B. Meyer 2021 Kapsa & Meyer

Science And Law: The Quest For The Neutral Expert Witness. A View From The Trenches, Carl B. Meyer

Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law

No abstract provided.


The Attorney-Client Privilege And Former Employees, Douglas R. Richmond 2021 The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law

The Attorney-Client Privilege And Former Employees, Douglas R. Richmond

Catholic University Law Review

Attorney-client relationships are infused with confidentiality, and the attorney-client privilege is critical to the protection of sensitive and important communications between clients and their lawyers. Organizational clients, like individuals, are entitled to assert the attorney-client privilege concerning communications that fall within its scope.

In the organizational context, a common problem is determining who among the entity’s employees speaks on its behalf, such that communications between the entity’s lawyers and those employees may be protected against discovery by the organization’s adversaries and other third parties. And, of course, as organizations experience the inevitable turnover in their workforces, another ...


What Telling Of A Survivor's Story Will Finally Force A Remedy? Notes On A Silencing By Lacy Crawford And Is Rape A Crime? A Memoir, An Investigation, And A Manifesto By Michelle Bowdler, Jody Raphael 2021 DePaul University College of Law, USA

What Telling Of A Survivor's Story Will Finally Force A Remedy? Notes On A Silencing By Lacy Crawford And Is Rape A Crime? A Memoir, An Investigation, And A Manifesto By Michelle Bowdler, Jody Raphael

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.


The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack 2021 University of Michigan Law School

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 ...


Social Media User Relationship Framework (Smurf), Anne David, Sarah Morris, Gareth Appleby-Thomas 2021 Cranfield University

Social Media User Relationship Framework (Smurf), Anne David, Sarah Morris, Gareth Appleby-Thomas

Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law

The use of social media has spread through many aspects of society, allowing millions of individuals, corporate as well as government entities to leverage the opportunities it affords. These opportunities often end up being exploited by a small percentage of the user community who use it for objectionable or unlawful activities; for example, trolling, cyber bullying, grooming, luring. In some cases, these unlawful activities result in investigations where swift retrieval of critical evidence required in order to save a life.

This paper presents a proof of concept (PoC) framework for social media user attribution. The framework aims to provide digital ...


Suicide In The Evidentiary Spotlight: An Analysis Of The Trustworthiness Of Suicide Notes Under The Federal Residual Exception, Jana J. Haikal 2021 Boston College Law School

Suicide In The Evidentiary Spotlight: An Analysis Of The Trustworthiness Of Suicide Notes Under The Federal Residual Exception, Jana J. Haikal

Boston College Law Review

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the twenty-first century. Individuals who take their own lives occasionally leave behind suicide notes. Although rare, these suicide notes are sometimes offered into evidence under the federal residual exception, an exception to the evidentiary rule against hearsay. A court must then decide whether a suicide note is admissible under this exception. In 2019, changes to the federal residual exception went into effect. To be admissible under the new standard, a hearsay statement must be trustworthy and possess probative value. Additionally, the offering party must give notice to the opposing party of its ...


Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes 2021 Seattle University School of Law

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in ...


Junk Science At Sentencing, Maneka Sinha 2021 University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Junk Science At Sentencing, Maneka Sinha

Faculty Scholarship

Junk science used in criminal trials has contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions. But the problem is much worse than that. Junk science does not only harm criminal defendants who go to trial, but also the overwhelming majority of defendants—over ninety-five percent—who plead guilty, skip trial, and proceed straight to sentencing.

Scientific, technical, and other specialized evidence (“STS evidence”) is used regularly, and with increasing frequency, at sentencing. Despite this, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents—which help filter unreliable STS evidence at trials—do not apply at the critical sentencing stage. In fact, at ...


Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret 2021 Penn State Dickinson Law

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review

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 ...


Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review 2021 Seattle University School of Law

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents


“No Earlier Confession To Repeat”: Seibert, Dixon, And Question-First Interrogations, Lee S. Brett 2021 Washington and Lee University School of Law

“No Earlier Confession To Repeat”: Seibert, Dixon, And Question-First Interrogations, Lee S. Brett

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Missouri v. Seibert forbade the use of so-called question-first interrogations. In a question-first interrogation, police interrogate suspects without giving Miranda warnings. Once the suspect makes incriminating statements, the police give the warnings and induce the suspect to repeat their earlier admissions.

Lower courts are increasingly interpreting a per curiam Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, to significantly limit the scope and applicability of Seibert. These courts claim that postwarning statements need only be suppressed under Seibert when there is an “earlier confession to repeat.” In this Note, I argue that this reading of ...


Comment: Wysiati And False Confessions, Michael R. Hoernlein 2021 Alston & Bird LLP

Comment: Wysiati And False Confessions, Michael R. Hoernlein

Washington and Lee Law Review

Decades after the Supreme Court mandated in Miranda v. Arizona that police advise suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation, confusion remains about the contours of the rule, and some law enforcement officers still try to game the system. In his excellent Note, “No Earlier Confession to Repeat”: Seibert, Dixon, and Question-First Interrogations, Lee Brett presents a careful analysis of the legal landscape applicable to so-called question-first interrogations. Mr. Brett offers a compelling argument urging courts not to interpret Bobby v. Dixon as limiting the application of Missouri v. Seibert to two-step (i.e., question-first) interrogations only when there ...


Why Would You Say That? Addressing Systemic Injustice In The Evidentiary Standard For Opposing Party Statements, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2021), Hugh Mundy, L. Alexandra McDonald 2021 UIC John Marshall Law School

Why Would You Say That? Addressing Systemic Injustice In The Evidentiary Standard For Opposing Party Statements, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2021), Hugh Mundy, L. Alexandra Mcdonald

UIC John Marshall Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Evidence Rules That Convict The Innocent, Jeffrey Bellin 2021 William & Mary Law School

The Evidence Rules That Convict The Innocent, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Over the past decades, DNA testing has uncovered hundreds of examples of the most important type of trial errors: innocent defendants convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder. The resulting Innocence Movement spurred reforms to police practices, forensic science, and criminal procedure. This Article explores the lessons of the Innocence Movement for American evidence law.

Commentators often overlook the connection between the growing body of research on convictions of the innocent and the evidence rules. Of the commonly identified causes of false convictions, only flawed forensic testimony has received sustained attention as a matter of evidence law. But other ...


Re-Thinking The Process For Administering Oaths And Affirmations, Colton Fehr 2020 Simon Fraser University, School of Criminology

Re-Thinking The Process For Administering Oaths And Affirmations, Colton Fehr

Dalhousie Law Journal

Courts around the world require witnesses to swear an oath to a religious deity or affirm to tell the truth before providing testimony. It is widely thought that such a process has the potential to give rise to unnecessary bias against witnesses based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Scholars have offered two main prescriptions to remedy this problem: (i) abolish the oath and have all witnesses promise to tell the truth; or (ii) require oath-swearing witnesses to invoke a non-specific reference to God. The former proposal is problematic as it rests on the unproven assertion that giving an ...


Feigned Consensus: Usurping The Law In Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions, Keith A. Findley, D. Michael Risinger, Patrick D. Barnes, Julie A. Mack, David A. Moran, Barry C. Scheck, Thomas L. Bohan 2020 University of Wisconsin Law School

Feigned Consensus: Usurping The Law In Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions, Keith A. Findley, D. Michael Risinger, Patrick D. Barnes, Julie A. Mack, David A. Moran, Barry C. Scheck, Thomas L. Bohan

Articles

Few medico-legal matters have generated as much controversy--both in the medical literature and in the courtroom--as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), now known more broadly as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). The controversies are of enormous significance in the law because child abuse pediatricians claim, on the basis of a few non-specific medical findings supported by a weak and methodologically flawed research base, to be able to “diagnose” child abuse, and thereby to provide all of the evidence necessary to satisfy all of the legal elements for criminal prosecution (or removal of children from their parents). It is a matter, therefore, in ...


No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason 2020 Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the ...


Junk Evidence: A Call To Scrutinize Historical Cell Site Location Evidence, Victoria Saxe 2020 University of New Hampshire

Junk Evidence: A Call To Scrutinize Historical Cell Site Location Evidence, Victoria Saxe

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

Historical cell site location information (CSLI) has been offered as objective, scientific location evidence in criminal trials, but is far less precise than the claims it is used to support. Not only is there no way to pinpoint a cellphone’s precise geographic location from historical CSLI, but there are also no known validation or error rates for the methodologies used to collect and analyze this data. A 2019 telecommunications scandal in Denmark revealed gross inadequacies in the cellphone data and software used by law enforcement to analyze this type of evidence. The scandal sent shockwaves through the country’s ...


Major Reforms For Minors’ Confessions: Rethinking Self-Incrimination Protections For Juveniles, Maxwell J. Fabiszewski 2020 Boston College Law School

Major Reforms For Minors’ Confessions: Rethinking Self-Incrimination Protections For Juveniles, Maxwell J. Fabiszewski

Boston College Law Review

The right against self-incrimination has been a part of American law since before the enactment of the Fifth Amendment. In the twentieth century, extreme police interrogation methods led the U.S. Supreme Court to institute further protections of this constitutional principle. Most significantly, in 1966, in Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court permanently altered American criminal procedure and culture by extending the now-famous Miranda rights to individuals before custodial interrogation. Over fifty years later, these procedural safeguards to the right against self-incrimination have met virtually universal criticism for their ineffectiveness. Matters are particularly dire for juveniles because the law has ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress