Digital Commons Network^™

Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact Of Kumho Tire On Forensic Identification Science, Michael J. Saks

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity And Evidentiary Admissibility, John Monahan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Should Control The Decision To Call A Witness: Respecting A Criminal Defendant's Tactical Choices, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

A law student approached me not long ago to discuss a problem he had encountered while helping to prepare a criminal case for retrial. The defendant's first trial ended with a hung jury. The defendant, Steven Brown, now faced a second trial on the same misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer. Although the defendant still wanted to go to trial, Brown told defense counsel that he did not want his elderly father to have to testify again. From defense counsel's standpoint, the father's testimony was critical because he was the only witness corroborating the defendant's version of the event. …

Toward A Level Playing Field: Challenges To Accomplice Testimony In The Wake Of United States V. Singleton, James W. Haldin

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Developments In Scientific Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein

Michigan Journal of International Law

18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.

Are Prosecutorial Ethics Standards Different?, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Once a prosecutor determines to employ an expert, a number of distinct decisions must be confronted-from choosing the expert, to complying with discovery obligations, to presenting the testimony at trial. Part I of this essay considers the selection of experts. Although improper selection of experts can be viewed as merely another aspect of presenting misleading testimony, we treat it separately in this essay because the literature typically ignores it. Part 1I examines the pretrial disclosure of scientific evidence. The issues that have arisen in this context include late disclosure, omitting information from laboratory reports, declining to have a report prepared, …

Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.

Prejudice To The NTh Degree: The Introduction Of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against A Co-Defendant At A Megatrial, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …

Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …

The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Article, Professors Ceci and Friedman analyze psychological studies on children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a significant degree. Studies confirm that interviewers commonly use suggestive interviewing techniques that exacerbate this suggestibility, creating a significant risk in some forensic contexts-notably but not exclusively those of suspected child abuse-that children will make false assertions of fact. Professors Ceci and Friedman address the implications of this difficulty for the legal system and respond to Professor Lyon's criticism of this view recently articulated in the Cornell Law Review. Using Bayesian probability theory, Professors Ceci and …

A Presumption Of Innocence, Not Of Even Odds, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Now I know how the Munchkins felt. Here I have been, toiling in the fields of Evidenceland for some years, laboring along with others to show how use of Bayesian probability theory can assist in the analysis and understanding of evidentiary problems.' In doing so, we have had to wage continuous battle against the Bayesioskeptics-the wicked witches who deny much value, even heuristic value, for probability theory in evidentiary analysis.2 Occasionally, I have longed for law-and-economics scholars to help work this field, which should be fertile ground for them.3 So imagine my delight when the virtual personification of law and …

When Balance And Fairness Collide: An Argument For Execution Impact Evidence In Capital Trials, Wayne A. Logan

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A central precept of death penalty jurisprudence is that only the "death worthy" should be condemned, based on a "reasoned moral response" by the sentencing authority. Over the past decade, however, the Supreme Court has distanced itself from its painstaking efforts in the 1970s to calibrate death decision making in the name of fairness. Compelling proof of this shift is manifest in the Court's decisions to permit victim impact evidence in capital trials, and to allow jurors to be instructed that sympathy for capital defendants is not to influence capital decisions. This Article examines a novel strategy now being employed …

Between Rock And A Hard Place: Polygraph Prejudice Persists After Scheffer, Robin D. Barovick

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primary focus is the admissibility of expert mental state testimony in criminal cases. The issue is addressed by answering two questions: 1) how does science work and 2) how does the brain work?

The Second Circuit's Attack On Jury Nullification In United States V. Thomas: In Disregard Of The Law And The Evidence, Ran Zev Schijanovich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interpretation Of The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—What Happened To The Common Law?, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The Kentucky Rules of Evidence, which became effective on July 1, 1992, dramatically transformed the method by which lawyers and judges address evidence issues. Before the adoption of the Rules, the law of evidence consisted mostly of a vast collection of common law rulings, accumulated over two centuries and inaccessible to lawyers and judges for all practical purposes. In addressing an evidence issue, participants had to first deal with the problem of "finding" the law-distilling from a morass of conflicting common law precedents the ones applicable to the issue at hand, a task regularly producing contention rather than agreement and, …

Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence And Ethics—Letting The Client Rest In Peace: Attorney-Client Privilege Survives The Death Of The Client. Swidler & Berlin V. United States, 118 S. Ct. 2081 (1998)., Julie Peters Zamacona

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulating The Market For Snitches , Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

These are boom times for the sellers and buyers of cooperation in the federal criminal justice system. While prosecutors have always welcomed the assistance of snitches, tougher federal sentencing laws have led to a significant increase in cooperation as more defendants try to provide "substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person," to have some chance of receiving a significant sentence reduction. In 1996 one of every five defendants sentenced in the federal courts won mitigation by providing substantial assistance. Many more defendants tried but failed to close the deal. The overheated cooperation market is creating serious problems …

The Extension Of The Bruton Rule At The Expense Of Judicial Efficiency In Gray V. Maryland, Richard F. Dzubin

University of Richmond Law Review

"An argument broke out between [Kevin] and Stacey in the 500 block of Louden Avenue. Stacey got smacked and then ran into Wildwood Parkway. Me, [Kevin], and a few other guys ran after Stacey .... We beat Stacey up."

When Justice Fails: Indemnification For Unjust Conviction, Adele Bernhard

Articles & Chapters

The first section of this article reviews the evidence, both historical and contemporary, documenting the existence and frequency of wrongful convictions. The next dissects an actual case to illustrate how an innocent person can be convicted and why, once the error has been corrected and the conviction is vacated, that person generally has no legal action for damages in the absence of indemnification legislation. The third section argues that society has a moral obligation to assist the wrongfully convicted; that indemnification legislation is a better approach than reliance on ''moral obligation" bills; and that enacting legislation is possible - just …

On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration, Terence J. Anderson

Articles

No abstract provided.

Interpretation Of The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence--What Happened To The Common Law?, Robert G. Lawson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. V. Carmichael: Brief Amici Curiae Of Neil Vidmar, Richard O. Lempert, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, Stephan Landsman, Robert Maccoun, Joseph Sanders, Harmon M. Hosch, Saul Kassin, Marc Galanter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Daniels, Edith Greene, Joanne Martin, Steven Penrod, James Richardson, Larry Heuer And Irwin Horowitz In Support Of Respondents, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Richard C. Lempert

Appellate Briefs

Amici are university professors or hold positions in independent research institutions. Each has conducted empirical research on juries. The interest of these amici in this case is to provide the Court with an accurate picture of what a substantial body of research says about jury competence and behavior as it pertains to the evaluation of expert testimony. Short biographies of each amicus are provided in Appendix A.

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summarizes a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the …

In Defense Of The Character Evidence Prohibition: Foundations Of The Rule Against Trial By Character, David P. Leonard

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Unintended Consequences, And Evidentiary Policy: A Critique And A Rethinking Of The Application Of A Single Set Of Evidence Rules To Civil And Criminal Cases, Myrna S. Raeder

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Outsider's View Of Common Law Evidence, Roger C. Park

Michigan Law Review

same line by a Newton. There have been improvements since Bentham's jeremiad. But Anglo-American evidence law is still puzzling. It rejects the common-sense principle of free proof in favor of a grotesque jumble of technicalities. It has the breathtaking aspiration of regulating inference by rule, causing it to exalt the foresight of remote rulemakers over the wisdom of on-the-spot adjudicators. It departs from tried-and-true practices of rational inquiry, as when it prohibits courts from using categories of evidence that are freely used both in everyday life and in the highest affairs of state. Sometimes it seems to fear dim light …