Digital Commons Network^™

A Bludgeon By Any Other Name: The Misuse Of Ethical Rules Against Prosecutors To Control The Law Of The State, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

My objective here is threefold: (1) to explain these ethical rules and demonstrate how each is in conflict with longstanding principles of federal criminal law; (2) to explain why these rules are illegitimate, both as rules of ethics and as rules of positive law; and (3) to offer some observations on how the dispute over these rules can sharpen our thinking about the nature and proper limits of ethical rules governing lawyers.

Lessons For The United States: A Greek Cypriot Model For Domestic Violence Law, Joan L. Neisser

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The purpose of this Article is twofold: to view the problem of domestic violence victims not wishing to testify against their abusers through the lenses of different feminist perspectives; and to use the Greek Cypriot experience as a model to test the value of these theories when developing legal policies addressing this issue.

When The Constable Blunders: A Comparison Of The Law Of Police Interrogation In Canada And The United States, Robert Harvie, Hamar Foster

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in limiting police interrogations and compares its case decisions with cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II of this Article examines the purposes and policies underlying sections 10(b), 7, and 24(2) of the Charter. Part III then examines the application of sections 10(b) and 7 in situations where (1) suspects are interrogated by uniformed police officers or other persons known to be in authority, and (2) suspects are interrogated surreptitiously by persons not known to be in authority. In both …

Arizona V. Evans: Narrowing The Scope Of The Exclusionary Rule, Laura A. Giantris

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Instructing Illinois Juries On The Definition Of “Reasonable Doubt”: The Need For Reform, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 921 (1996), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Branding The Sexual Predator: Constitutional Ramifications Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 Through 415, Margaret C. Livnah

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note seeks to address both the potential constitutional consequences of the newly passed Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 and the problems that these revisions were designed to remedy. Section II will introduce the history of the passage of these controversial revisions as primarily a political process and one which bypassed the standard rules of practice. Section III will address the procedural violations and the troubling inconsistency of the new rules with the federal courts' interpretation of the other Federal Rules of Evidence. Section IV of this Note will address the substantive constitutional issues presented by these amendments, …

The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

As the Supreme Court has said, time and again, death is different: It is "different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice;"1 it "differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year sentence differs from one of only a year or two;"' 2 and so forth. Traditionally, this observation has justified special procedural protections for capital defendants. Justice Harlan put it nicely nearly forty years ago: "I do not concede that whatever process is 'due' an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a capital …

Restrictions On Law Enforcement Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Introduction: O.J. Simpson And The Criminal Justice System On Trial, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Discovering Who We Are: An English Perspective On The Simpson Trial, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

What About The Children? Are Family Lawyers The Same (Ethically) As Criminal Lawyers? A Morality Play, Robert H. Aronson

Articles

A fictional account of a lawyer, representing a woman in a divorce case, who learns from her client that her live-in boyfriend has hit her and her five-year-old daughter. Is her ethical duty to protect the child greater than her responsibility to maintain the attorney-client privilege. She discusses the matter with two evidence professors in search of a solution.

The Effect Of Expert Testimony On Juror Decision Making In Eyewitness Identification Cases, Pamela J. Sullivan

Theses : Honours

The provision of expert testimony for the defence has been demonstrated to sensitise jurors to the variables that may reduce the reliability of an eyewitness identification (Cutler, Dexter, & Penrod, 1989). However, research examining the variables that reduce identification reliability has revealed conflicting findings (Yuille & Cutshall, 1986). Given this disparity in psychological opinion, a situation may arise where opposing expert testimony for the prosecution and the defence is delivered within the same criminal trial This thesis examined the effect of each form of expert testimony about eyewitness identification issues on the decision of the individual juror. The decision making …

Defending Duii Charges, Oregon Law Institute, Clarence E. Lankins, William Uhle, Robert G. Thuemmel, John Henry Hingson Iii, Erin K. Olson, Michael H. Marcus, John Powers, Nancy L. Macklin, Douglas A. Brown, Edward Jones, Frederick Lenzser

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the October 6, 1995 Program in Portland

The Ethics Of Witness Coaching, Richard C. Wydick

Cardozo Law Review

This Article focuses on the ethics of coaching cooperative lay witnesses (not adversary witnesses or expert witnesses). It discusses mostly United States law, but the problems it discusses exist also in England and other nations that use the common law adversary system. As used here, "witness coaching" means conduct by a lawyer that alters a witness's story about the events in question. Usually witness coaching occurs when a lawyer is interviewing a witness in the course of investigating the facts of the case or when a lawyer is preparing a witness to testify at a deposition or trial. Interviewing a …

She’S Gotta Have It Now: A Qualified Rape Crisis Counselor-Victim Privilege, Euphemia B. Warren

Cardozo Law Review

This Note analyzes the justifications for a testimonial privilege for communications between a rape victim and her counselor. More importantly, it contends that a qualified privilege sufficiently protects the counselor-victim relationship and the rape victim's need for confidentiality, while at the same time securing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. This Note endorses a qualified privilege that requires a specific showing by the defendant that the information he seeks might be helpful to his case before the trial judge will conduct an in camera inspection of the confidential rape counseling records. In the in camera review, the judge will determine whether …

No Magic Formula: A New Approach For Calculating The Ten Year Time Period For Admission Of Prior Conviction Evidence, Amy E. Sloan

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609 governs admission of prior conviction evidence. Under this rule, it is easier to admit evidence of a prior conviction that is less than ten years old than to admit evidence of older convictions. The ten year period is measured from the later of either the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement.

Calculating the ten year period is fairly straightforward in most cases but becomes confusing when the witness has been confined for violating the terms of probation, parole, or some other period of conditional release. Does the confinement for violation …

The Presumption Of Innocence Imperiled: The New Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 And The Use Of Other Sexual-Offense Evidence In Washington, Jeffrey G. Pickett

Washington Law Review

The U.S. Congress has provisionally enacted three new federal rules of evidence (FRE). In cases of sexual assault or child molestation, FRE 413-415 allow the use, for any relevant purpose, of sexual assault or child molestation evidence not charged in the indictment or information. The new rules would operate in contravention of the traditional prohibition against using evidence of other misconduct for the purpose of proving that the defendant acted in conformity with a particular character trait on the occasion in question. This Comment surveys the arguments for and against the proposed changes. It concludes that Washington should not elect …

Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'

Black Rage: The Illegitimacy Of A Criminal Defense, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995), Kimberly M. Copp

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Misconduct In Presenting Evidence: "Backdooring" Hearsay, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Rules of evidence are designed to bring about just and informed decisions. One of these rules, the hearsay rule, is designed to ensure that juries receive reliable evidence, and that out-of-court statements ordinarily are inadmissible. Prosecutors are well aware of these evidentiary restrictions, but occasionally seek to circumvent them. The author describes methods used by some prosecutors to manipulate the hearsay rule and thereby distort the truth-finding process of the trial.

Impeachment Of Party By Prior Inconsistent Statement In Compromise Negotiations: Admissibility Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408, Fred S. Hjelmeset

Cleveland State Law Review

This note will explore the concept of compromise and the public policy in furtherance of compromise and settlement, and then discuss whether Rule 408,in its current form, is maximizing its potential to effectively serve that public policy. The note concludes that an amendment extending Rule 408's protective reach to exclude a party's prior inconsistent statements in compromise negotiations from admission into evidence for impeachment purposes would strengthen the inducement to settle claims without erecting any new substantial obstacles in the way of the truth-finding process. The central rationale is that, if the laws permit compromise negotiations to become arenas where …

The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures And The French Experience, Florence Sophie Boreil

LLM Theses and Essays

Under the American approach to criminal justice, freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance. The American criminal justice system reflects a distrust of abuse of power and an emphasis on protection of personal freedom. However, the French take a contrary approach; under French law, freedom is achieved through the State. This paper examines the protection of individuals’ rights in American and French criminal procedure. Focus will be given to tracking the police investigatory powers in each country through searches and seizures, and the impact that those powers have on individuals’ rights. This paper will assert that the police …

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be …

The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda v. Arizona.

Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein

Articles

This is not a conventional article. It is an edited version of messages sent to an Internet discussion list. The listings begin with the mention of a recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, parts of which are reproduced below. The listings soon move to broader issues concerning probability and other formal systems, their limitations, and their uses either in court or as devices for understanding legal proof.

Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …

Mapping The Labyrinth Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Factors For Reasonable Suspicion: When Black And Poor Means Stopped And Frisked, David A. Harris

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Daubert: Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Cardozo Law Review

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as …

The Admissibility Of Dna Evidence In Washington After State V. Cauthron, Elizabeth A. Allen

Washington Law Review

In State v. Cauthron, the Washington Supreme Court issued its first opinion concerning forensic DNA evidence. The court clearly held that the principles underlying DNA evidence and the restricted fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) method of DNA typing are generally accepted in the scientific community and are therefore admissible under the Frye test. The court refused to find that the trial court had properly admitted DNA evidence, however, because testimony that the suspect's DNA "matched" the perpetrator's was not supported by probability statistics. This Note demonstrates that the court was unclear in its discussion of when probability statistics meet the Frye …