Evidence Commons^™

Understanding The Sexual Assault Kit Backlog In Pennsylvania, Kallie Crawford, Lyndsie Ferrara

Graduate Student Research Symposium

According to the FBI, to date, there are more than 400,000 untested sexual assault kits nationwide. While this is a huge issue that cannot be solved overnight, continual improvements and changes are needed to reduce and hopefully eliminate the backlog.

This research examines work going on nationwide and aims to better understand the backlog issues specifically in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the research examines a program utilized by the law enforcement community that garnered necessary resources. First, a comprehensive review of improved practices in proactive jurisdictions of Ohio, Houston, Texas, and Detroit, Michigan was conducted to identify general policies and procedures that …

Self Incrimination And Cryptographic Keys, Gregory S. Sergienko

Greg Sergienko

Modern cryptography can make it virtually impossible to decipher documents without the cryptographic key thus making the availability of the contents of those documents depend on the availability of the key. This article examines the Fourth and Fifth Amendments' protection against the compulsory production of the key and the scope of the Fifth Amendment immunity against compelled production. After analyzing these questions using prevailing Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, I shall describe the advantages of a privacy-based approach in practical and constitutional terms. [excerpt]

The Grand Jury: A Shield Of A Different Sort, R. Michael Cassidy, Julian A. Cook Iii

R. Michael Cassidy

According to the Washington Post, 991 people were shot to death by police officers in the United States during calendar year 2015, and 957 people were fatally shot in 2016. A disproportionate percentage of the citizens killed in these police-civilian encounters were black. Events in Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; Charlotte, North Carolina; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Staten Island, New York - to name but a few affected cities - have now exposed deep distrust between communities of color and law enforcement. Greater transparency is necessary to begin to heal this culture of distrust and to inform the debate going forward …

Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell

Maine Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …

A Call For Consistency: State V. Caouette Is No Longer Viable In Light Of Colorado V. Connelly And State V. Eastman, Donald W. Macomber

Maine Law Review

This Article challenges the Law Court's expansive interpretation in State v. Caouette of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination embodied in Article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution in the context of reviewing claims of the involuntariness of a confession. The court's declaration that a reliable confession must be suppressed on state constitutional grounds based solely on a suspect's internal factors, and in the absence of any police overreaching in obtaining the confession, contradicted two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence requiring some form of government action to implicate the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of …

The Romberg Imbalance: Mitchell V. State Upsets The Equilibrium Of Admissible Field Sobriety Test Results In Georgia, Eric F. Kramer

Mercer Law Review

In Mitchell v. State, a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court held that the State must provide a scientific foundation for the Romberg Balance test (Romberg test) before its results are admissible against a defendant in DUI cases. To satisfy the standard set by the supreme court in Harper v. State, the State must show that a scientific procedure has reached a "stage of verifiable certainty" to produce reliable results. Additionally, the State must show that the procedure was "substantially performed ... in an acceptable manner." The trial court acts as the gatekeeper by determining the admissibility of a scientific …

Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

To Understand Us V. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme V. Shamrock', Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

The February 27, 2018, Supreme Court argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp. raises profound questions about issues of executive power, corporate governance, technology, judicial power and international affairs. At stake for the government is the scope of its investigative authority to obtain information located in a foreign country, irrespective of that country’s laws. At stake for Microsoft is its ability to organize its international corporate affairs and the predictability of the laws that will govern those affairs. This article analyzes the potential effects of this critical Supreme Court case.

Using Prior Consistent Statements To Rehabilitate Credibility Or To Prove Substantive Assertions Before And After The 2014 Amendment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Floralynn Einesman

Floralynn Einesman

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) expanded the non-hearsay category of admissible prior consistent statements with FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) to include any statements counsel uses to rehabilitate a declarant’s credibility after that credibility has been attacked. FREV 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) require that a declarant testify and be subjected to cross-examination about the prior consistent statement. Under these rules, the time at which the declarant made the consistent statement and her reason for making it are critical.

When the declarant does not testify, however, under FRE 806 opposing counsel may still attack the declarant’s credibility. Under these circumstances, it is often challenging …

Panel Discussion: Author Meets Critic

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion: Ethnographic Evidence

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion: Ethnography, Ethics & Law

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett

Maine Law Review

In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …

Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford

Maine Law Review

In recent years, several decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court have addressed the comments of prosecutors in final argument before criminal juries. Three of those decisions in particular have caused concern among prosecutors and have stirred discussion in the Maine legal community. In vacating convictions in State v. Steen, State v. Casella, and State v. Tripp, the Law Court focused on the language used by the prosecutors during closing argument and concluded that those prosecutors impermissibly expressed personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendants, or witnesses called by the defendants. This Article examines …

Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Maine Law Review

For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States governed the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Frye decision in 1923. Under Frye, the proponent of testimony had to demonstrate that the expert's testimony was based on a generally accepted theory or technique. However, in 1993--seventy years after the rendition of the Frye decision--another court sitting in Washington, the United States Supreme Court, overturned the standard. The Court did so in its now celebrated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision. In the interim between …

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Criticism of the hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence has reached a fever pitch in recent years. With scholars calling for the abrogation of the entire hearsay regime or of individual exceptions within it and the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules exploring hearsay amendments, the time for genuine hearsay soul-searching may be at hand. This Article suggests that aggressive proposals to scuttle existing doctrine entirely in favor of alternative approaches to hearsay are overly broad, rejecting the benefits of significant portions of existing doctrine that are functioning well and threatening costly consequences that could make matters worse …

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

James W. Ellis

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …

State V. Brackett: Does The State Have A Right Of Appeal?, Theodore A. Small

Maine Law Review

In State v. Brackett, the defendant was charged with kidnapping, gross sexual assault, burglary, and criminal threatening with the use of a dangerous weapon. The State of Maine filed an in limine motion to exclude any evidence relating to the victim's past sexual behavior, including evidence that the victim may have been a prostitute sometime prior to the incident in dispute. Although evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior is generally inadmissible. The State appealed. A divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, holding that the appeal was …

No Need For Cities To Despair After Bank Of America Corporation V. City Of Miami: How Patent Law Can Assist In Proving Predatory Loans Directly Cause Municipal Blight Under The Fair Housing Act, Jesse D.H. Snyder

Maine Law Review

Lack of sanguinity for cities was manifest after the Supreme Court’s May 1, 2017, opinion in Bank of America Corporation v. City of Miami. Although Bank of America recognized that cities have Article III standing to sue for economic injuries suffered from predatory lending, the Supreme Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s more lenient causation standard, favoring proof of “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Doubtless the result could have been worse for cities suing on the premise that racially discriminatory lending caused municipal blight. The courthouse doors could have closed if the Court had …