Digital Commons Network^™

Form And Function In The Administration Of Justice: The Bill Of Rights And Federal Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Part I critiques the Report's insistence that accurate fact finding exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the objectives of criminal justice, identifies the fundamental role of the Bill of Rights in the American political order, and situates federal habeas corpus within that framework. Part II traces the Report's historical review of the federal habeas jurisdiction and critiques the Report's too-convenient reliance on selected materials that, on examination, fail to undermine conventional understandings of the writ's development as a postconviction remedy. Part III responds to the Report's complaints regarding current habeas corpus practice and refutes contentions that the habeas jurisdiction overburdens federal dockets …

A Political-Choice Approach To Limiting Prejudicial Evidence, J. Alexander Tanford

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Contingent Fees Without Contingencies: Hamlet Without The Prince Of Demark?, Lester Brickman

Articles

According to conventional wisdom virtually all contingent fee percentages exceeding fifty percent are illegal and excessive, but most lower percentages are valid. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom, an amalgam of the unassailability of the standard one-third rate, notions of fairness versus price gouging, lawyer effort versus lawyer' reward, and the right of a lawyer to contract freely for a fee. It advances instead two propositions for determining the legitimacy of contingent fees. The first is that for a contingent fee to be valid, there must be an actual contingency, which means a realistic risk of nonrecovery. Though this proposition …

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights.

The search and seizure …

The Admission Of Criminal Histories At Trial, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As part of a continuing series of studies on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investigation and adjudication, the Office of Legal Policy has carried out a review of the law governing the admission of the criminal records of defendants and other persons at trial. The results of this review are set out in this Report.

Proof And Prejudice: A Constitutional Challenge To The Treatment Of Prejudicial Evidence In Federal Criminal Cases, D. Craig Lewis

Washington Law Review

The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions the Constitution requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Professor Lewis argues that Winship governs the validity of evidence rules in criminal cases and requires that rules of evidence do not impair the reliability of criminal convictions. The author concludes that Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which permits the admission of prejudicial evidence unless the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value, violates this requirement. Rule 403 substantially increases the risk of erroneous decisionmaking and prescribes a balancing test that unconstitutionally places …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

Equivalent Deterrence: A Proposed Alternative To The Exclusionary Rule In Criminal Proceedings, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no other area of American jurisprudence is as controversial as the exclusionary rule. Rejected by all other civilized countries2 and held in contempt by much of the American public, the rule reached its zenith during the Warren Court, only to be chipped away a little at a time by the Burger Court. Indeed, if the rule is ever to die, it seems destined to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. . .

Helping Jurors To Make Sense Of Expert Testimony, David Aaronson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Today's jurors frequently sit in trials where confusing and conflicting expert testimony is likely to be presented by sophisticated and highly trained individuals, using terminology unfamiliar to the average person. Proposals have been made and trial courts are experimenting with various procedures—none thoroughly evaluated— to improve jurors’ ability to cope with such testimony. My purpose here is to more clearly identify the problem and to review some of the reform proposals.

Defending Miranda, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Needed: A Rewrite, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Proposed far-reaching changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence are of major practical significance to every lawyer involved in the criminal justice process. The proposed changes are contained in a recent report by the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section's Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Committee. The report was selected for publication in Federal Rules Decisions, 120 F.R.D. 299 (1988), because of its interest to federal practitioners and judges. More than 40 judges, lawyers, and scholars were involved in the four-year study, and experts on each particular rule acted as "reporters" to the committee on those areas.

The report …

Theories Of Truth Finding In Criminal Procedure: An Evolutionary Approach, John D. Jackson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony On Rape Trauma Syndrome: An Argument For Limited Admissibility—State V. Black, 109 Wash. 2d 336, 745 P.2d 12 (1987), Deborah A. Dwyer

Washington Law Review

In State v. Black, the Washington Supreme Court faced the question of whether the State, in a rape case, should be allowed to offer expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome ("RTS"). After examining some of the relevant scientific literature, case law, and the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony, the court held that expert testimony on RTS was inadmissible. The court based its decision on findings that RTS testimony lacks scientific reliability, and that it unfairly prejudices a defendant accused of rape. The court's holding in Black was based on a misinterpretation of the available scientific literature, and on …

Expert Testimony On Rape Trauma Syndrome: An Argument For Limited Admissibility—State V. Black, 109 Wash. 2d 336, 745 P.2d 12 (1987), Deborah A. Dwyer

Washington Law Review

In State v. Black, the Washington Supreme Court faced the question of whether the State, in a rape case, should be allowed to offer expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome ("RTS"). After examining some of the relevant scientific literature, case law, and the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony, the court held that expert testimony on RTS was inadmissible. The court based its decision on findings that RTS testimony lacks scientific reliability, and that it unfairly prejudices a defendant accused of rape. The court's holding in Black was based on a misinterpretation of the available scientific literature, and on …

The Meaning Of Probative Value And Prejudice In Federal Rule Of Evidence 403: Can Rule 403 Be Used To Resurrect The Common Law Of Evidence?, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the common law system of evidence, logically relevant evidence is presumptively admissible. The logical relevance of an item of evidence, however, does not guarantee its admission. The common law has developed a number of rules that exclude logically relevant evidence. In some cases, the common law excludes evidence because of doubts about the credibility or reliability of that type of evidence. For example, the best evidence rule rests primarily on skepticism about the trustworthiness of secondary evidence concerning a document's contents.- When the issue is the content of a document, the common law prefers that the document itself be …

The Admissibility Of Expert Psychological Testimony In Cases Involving The Sexual Misuse Of A Child, Dirk Lorentzen

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Former Testimony Under Rule 804(B)(1): Defining A Predecessor In Interest, Mark Lawrence

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 26(B)(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Discovery Of Expert Information, James L. Hayes, Paul T. Ryder Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On Interracial Conflict In New York State Self-Defense Cases, Jay Lippman

In the Public Interest

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Laboratory Reports In Criminal Trials: The Reliability Of Scientific Proof, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The New Illinois Videotape Statute In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Reconciling The Defendant's Constitutional Rights With The State's Interest In Prosecuting Defenders, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 331 (1988), Denise C. Hockley-Cann

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proving The Defendant's Bad Character, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The classic study of the American jury shows that when a defendant's criminal record is known and the prosecution's case has weaknesses, the defendant's chances of acquittal are thirty-eight percent, compared to sixty-five percent otherwise. Because of the danger that jurors will assume that the defendant is guilty based on proof that his bad character predisposes him to an act of crime, the courts and legislatures have attempted to circumscribe the use of such evidence. Some prosecutors, however, although well aware of the insidious effect such prejudicial evidence can have on jurors, violate the rules of evidence, as well as …

Rape Shield Laws--Is It Time For Reinforcement?, Catherine L. Kello

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note takes a critical look at civil suits arising from allegations of rape, particularly from the perspective of how these actions run counter to the spirit of rape reform and rape shield legislation. The analysis begins with a brief history of the Rape Shield Law and its intended purposes. Part II then utilizes two cases to outline the current dilemma posed by civil suits that are filed during a pending criminal sexual conduct prosecution. After presenting these cases, Part III considers whether a legislative remedy is required and determines that it is. Part IV then proposes a Model Statute. …

Don't Be Cowed By Scientific Evidence: A Pretrial Primer For Prosecutors And Defense Attorneys, F. Thomas Schornhorst

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

A Subject Matter Approach To Hearsay Reform, Roger Park

Michigan Law Review

None of the three major reform proposals - the Model Code, the Uniform Rules, or the original Federal Rules - incorporated a systematic distinction between civil and criminal cases. The thesis of this article is that this distinction should be adopted. This article will explore the reasons for excluding hearsay, and conclude that they support different sets of rules in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, rules excluding hearsay should be curtailed. Hearsay that fits under an established exception should be admitted, and other hearsay, without discretionary screening by the trial judge, should be admitted on proper notice. In …

'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …

The Ultimate Violation, Todd Maybrown

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Ultimate Violation by Judith Rowland

Adjudicative Facts, Non-Evidence Facts, And Permissible Jury Background Information, Richard M. Fraher

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Vi. Evidence A.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.