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

Evidence Commons

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

3,936 Full-Text Articles 2,706 Authors 1,737,639 Downloads 137 Institutions

All Articles in Evidence

Faceted Search

3,936 full-text articles. Page 74 of 80.

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch 2010 University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Reinforcing The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad After Blocking Statutes, Data Privacy Directives, And Aerospatiale, Brian Friederich 2010 University of San Diego

Reinforcing The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad After Blocking Statutes, Data Privacy Directives, And Aerospatiale, Brian Friederich

San Diego International Law Journal

There has always been tension between European countries and the United States on the topic of evidence gathering. Much of that tension stems from the inherent differences between common and civil policies and methods. Until the Hague Convention, the process for obtaining evidence abroad was cumbersome and unreliable. The Hague Convention sought to change that by providing signatory countries more effective methods of cooperating with each other in international litigation. However, the Hague Convention has not been able to achieve its purpose, at least not in the United States. U.S. courts have interpreted the Hague Convention as optional, meaning ...


Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan 2010 Liberty University School of Law

Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan

Faculty Publications and Presentations

An inquiry that seeks truth by accepting only natural answers excludes the possibility of the sacred or supernatural, building a wall that forecloses a complete exploration for the truth it seeks. Without analysis, critics dismiss sources presenting supernatural explanations, and those who believe sacred works have no factual foundation accept without investigation any popular theory that appears attractive. The rules of evidence expressly seek truth, wherever it lies. Noted legal scholar Simon Greenleaf used evidentiary principles to demonstrate the factual credibility of the Gospels in his Testimony of the Evangelists. This Article examines Greenleaf’s analysis, applying current rules of ...


Plea Bargainng, Discovery, And Waivers, R. Michael Cassidy 2010 Boston College Law School

Plea Bargainng, Discovery, And Waivers, R. Michael Cassidy

R. Michael Cassidy

No abstract provided.


Technology - Konop V. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Patricia DeFonte 2010 Golden Gate University School of Law

Technology - Konop V. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Patricia Defonte

Golden Gate University Law Review

In Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the unauthorized access of the content of a secure website is a violation of the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. This is the first case to determine whether unauthorized accessing of a secure private website is a violation of the Wiretap Act. This decision is contrary to an earlier decision by the Fifth Circuit in United. States v. Turk, which held that the Wiretap Act required contemporaneous transmission and acquisition of the communication. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the scope ...


A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy 2010 Golden Gate University School of Law

A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment will trace the history of the hearsay rule under both common law and California law. It examines the early use of the common law state of mind hearsay exception regarding statements of fear and physical abuse. It will also discuss the enactment of the California Evidence Code (hereinafter "Code") and the later codification of the state of mind hearsay exception. In addition, it will examine People v. Ruiz, a case which applied the Code's state of mind hearsay exception to prohibit statements regarding the victims' fear of the defendant and the physical abuse which the defendant inflicted ...


Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews 2010 Golden Gate University School of Law

Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews

Golden Gate University Law Review

This article discusses how courts admit and exclude threat hearsay in the domestic homicide context and suggests an approach for admission of such evidence. After analyzing the current evidentiary status of the victim's statements regarding threats in homicide cases in which an apparently abusive spouse/partner is accused, I argue for adoption of a new hearsay exception that permits systematic admission of victims' statements concerning threats and violence by the accused. The victim can no longer speak for herself because she has been killed, often because the law is apparently helpless to intervene on her behalf, even when asked ...


California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso 2010 Golden Gate University School of Law

California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment will initially discuss the history of the shield law in California and examine how it has been defined by the courts in the leading cases. It will also discuss New York Times, Delaney and Hallissy in terms of the courts' application of the shield law to those cases. The analyses of New York Times and Hallissy will be contrasted with that of Delaney. This Comment will attempt to show how the New York Times/Hallissy analysis could have been applied to the facts of Delaney and still have yielded the same result. Recommendations will be made with respect ...


Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka 2010 Golden Gate University School of Law

Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka

Golden Gate University Law Review

This comment will examine the Amber B. court's decision to characterize evidence provided by the mental health professionals as scientific evidence and not as expert opinion. Secondly, this comment will explore the desirability of imposing the scientific evidence standard, usually applied in criminal cases, to dependency hearings. Finally, this comment will discuss the implications of the Amber B. decision in light of the already present evidentiary difficulties of proving child sexual abuse claims and the social policy of protecting the welfare of the abused child.


When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs 2010 William & Mary Law School

When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

Fact-finding at the international tribunals is not as precise as we think. Nancy Combs, Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, explores this in her new book 'Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions'.


Problems At Daubert: Expert Testimony In Title Vii Sex Discrimination And Sexual Harassment Litigation, Harriet M. Antczak 2010 Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.

Problems At Daubert: Expert Testimony In Title Vii Sex Discrimination And Sexual Harassment Litigation, Harriet M. Antczak

Buffalo Journal of Gender, Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice 2010 American University Washington College of Law

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous ...


Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice 2010 American University Washington College of Law

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous ...


Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice 2010 American University Washington College of Law

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous ...


Criminal Practice Developments In Maryland Evidence Law And Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence, Lynn McLain 2010 University of Baltimore

Criminal Practice Developments In Maryland Evidence Law And Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper was prepared as a handout for a presentation given on July 9th., 2010 to staff at the Harford County Public Defender’s Office, Bel Air, MD. The specific sections of the paper are: Discovery of Witnesses’ Identities: Protective Orders; Jury Selection; Communications from Jurors; Preservation of the Record: Rules 4-323, 5-103, and 5-702; Judicial Notice: Rule 5-201; Balancing Risk of Unfair Prejudice and Confusion against Probative Value: Rule 5-403; Character Evidence; Fifth Amendment Privilege: Miranda; Competency of Witnesses: Rule 5-601; Impeachment by Prior Convictions: Rule 5-609; Questioning by Court: Rule 5-614; Expert Testimony: Rules 5-702 – 5-706; Hearsay; The ...


Islamic Legal Maxims As Substantive Canons Of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance In Cases Of Doubt, Intisar A. Rabb 2010 Boston College Law School

Islamic Legal Maxims As Substantive Canons Of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance In Cases Of Doubt, Intisar A. Rabb

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Legal maxims reflect settled principles of law to which jurists appeal when confronting new legal cases. One such maxim of Islamic criminal law stipulates that judges are to avoid imposing ḥudūd and other sanctions when beset by doubts as to the scope of the law or the sufficiency of the evidence (idra’ū ʾl-ḥudūd biʾl-shubahāt): the “ḥudūd maxim.” Jurists of all periods reference this maxim widely. But whereas developed juristic works attribute it to Muḥammad in the form of a prophetic report (ḥadīth), early jurists do not. Instead, they cite the maxim as an anonymous saying of nonspecific provenance in ...


Silent At Sentencing: Waiver Doctrine And A Capital Defendant's Right To Present Mitigating Evidence After Schriro V. Landrigan, Dale E. Ho 2010 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP / NAACP LDF

Silent At Sentencing: Waiver Doctrine And A Capital Defendant's Right To Present Mitigating Evidence After Schriro V. Landrigan, Dale E. Ho

Dale E Ho

The consideration of mitigating evidence—evidence that weighs against the imposition of the death penalty in a capital defendant’s individual case—has been deemed a “constitutionally indispensable” feature of a valid capital sentencing scheme. And yet, Jeffrey Landrigan, like many capital defendants, was sentenced to death without the consideration of any mitigating evidence whatsoever. Landrigan’s trial counsel failed to uncover substantial evidence of Landrigan’s history of severe physical and sexual abuse as a child, and of the possible biological effects of his mother’s alcohol and drug abuse. Every member of the Ninth Circuit en banc panel ...


Limites A La Vigencia Del Principio Contradictorio En Los Juicios De Familia / Limits To The Adversarial Ideal In The Family Courts, Claudio Fuentes Maureira 2010 Universidad Diego Portales

Limites A La Vigencia Del Principio Contradictorio En Los Juicios De Familia / Limits To The Adversarial Ideal In The Family Courts, Claudio Fuentes Maureira

Claudio Fuentes Maureira

The relevance of the adversarial ideal in the design of judicial proceedings is due to two major ideas: the right to a proper defence for the parties and the important role that the parties perform during the questioning and the control of the other party’s case. Once the relevance of the adversarial ideal is acknowledged, one could ask if this ideal is properly welcomed under the family procedure stated in the law. I propose that in order to answer this question properly, it is pertinent to use some sort of instrument to measure the amount of the adversarialness that ...


Informe De Funcionamiento De Los Tribunales De Familia De Santiago / Report On The Family Courts Of Santiago City, Claudio Fuentes Maureira, Felipe Marín Verdugo, Erick Rios Leiva 2010 Universidad Diego Portales

Informe De Funcionamiento De Los Tribunales De Familia De Santiago / Report On The Family Courts Of Santiago City, Claudio Fuentes Maureira, Felipe Marín Verdugo, Erick Rios Leiva

Claudio Fuentes Maureira

In October 2005, the Chilean government launched the new family courts. The new tribunals were the second major judicial reform that Chile’s executive power supported and it was a huge failure. The system collapsed after a couple of months, and in the beginning of the 2006, the executive branch called for a group of academics and experts to elaborate some kind of response.

After years of problems the authorities arrived at identifying the main problems, and because of that in September 2008 a new bill was enacted, containing modifications to the family law system. Also, the Supreme Court of ...


Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood 2010 University of Kentucky College of Law

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.


Digital Commons powered by bepress