Digital Commons Network^™

An Assessment Of Videotape In The Criminal Courts, Ernest H. Short, B. Thomas Florence, Mary Alice Marsh

BYU Law Review

Summary of Contents

I. Introduction

A. A brief history of television and videotape in the justice system

B. Recent studies of videotape technology in the justice system

C. Overview of the goals and methodology of the present study

II. The Videotape System

A. The recording environment

1. Lighting

2. Spatial arrangement

3. Participant mobility

4. Acoustics

5. Electrical power

B. Production techniques

1. Video source location

2. Audio source location

3. Picture composition

a. Zooms

b. Varying video sources

c. Special effects

C. Alternative equipment combinations

1. System 1 : the single camera

2. System 2: the single camera with …

The Admissibility Of Social Science Evidence In Person-Oriented Legal Adjudication, Ira P. Robbins

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Expanding Defendant's Discovery: The Jencks Act At Pretrial Hearings, David B. Olney

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Voiceprint Dilemma: Should Voices, Be Seen And Not Heard?

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Prosecution At A Lohss: Time For Statutory Revision

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Practitioner's Guide To The Federal Rules Of Evidence

University of Richmond Law Review

On July 1, 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect. President Ford's signature on Public Law 93-595 was the culmination of nearly twenty years of study, drafting, and debate. Obviously the decision to codify federal evidence law was not lightly made, but the desire for uniformity ultimately made the Rules possible. As with all major legislation, compromise was necessary and certain areas of the law were left untouched. Criminal presumptions represent one such area. In other areas, such as privilege, only minimal codification was possible. The final result is a good set of rules, but one which might …

A Look At Florida's Proposed Code Of Evidence, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Look At Florida's Proposed Code Of Evidence, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Scholarly Publications

The law of evidence had been codified in three states, California, New Jersey and Kansas, prior to the United States Supreme Court's promulgation of the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence. The submission of the rules to the Congress, and their approval, as amended, by the House of Representatives served as the catalyst for renewed interest in evidence codification. Three states have recently adopted comprehensive Rules of Evidence that closely parallel the Proposed Federal Rules, and at least four other states, including Florida, have drafted or are actively considering the adoption of such a codification. During the 1974 session of the …

Evidence—Congressional Preemption Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence—Pub. L. No. 93-12, 87 Stat. 9 (Mar. 30, 1973), Lyle K. Wilson

Washington Law Review

This history is indicative of the conflict between the Court and Congress over the Court's authority to promulgate rules of evidence. Central to this controversy is the question of whether rules of evidence are substantive or procedural. This note is devoted to a discussion of that issue, ultimately arriving at the conclusion that most of the rules which were prescribed by the Court are procedural in nature and, therefore, within the Court's power to prescribe rules of practice and procedure under the enabling acts.

Ordering A New Trial After Sustaining Defendant's Motion To Correct Errors Under Indiana Trial Rule 59 Alleging Insufficient Evidence In A Nonjury Trial, Dennis L. Moeschl

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Developments In Evidence Of Other Crimes, Nickolas J. Kyser

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

If the defendant in a criminal trial has a record of other offenses or is suspected of a number of crimes although charged with only one, the admissibility of evidence of these other offenses can be crucial. Admissibility depends in part on the purpose for which the evidence is offered. For instance, the prosecution is severely limited in its use of evidence of character. Until the defendant submits evidence of his good character, the subject cannot be raised and even after character is put in issue particular acts are not allowed to show character. The defendant's prior convictions may be …

Some Themes In The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are under consideration by Congress, it is unlikely that many of their major themes will be reversed. The present article examines some of these themes as they appear in the Supreme Court-approved draft. The aim is merely to make more explicit the effects of the Rules and suggest some questions for study.

Scope Of Cross-Examination And The Proposed Federal Rules, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

In analyzing the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, the drafting work of the Advisory Committee should not be overlooked. This is easy to do when any particular rule is isolated and criticized. For the most part, the total rules package prepared by the Advisory Committee represents a commendable effort to provide a needed set of uniform rules for federal trials. The ideas contained in the new rules are almost invariably well researched. When oversights or omissions in treatment do appear, however, it is well to raise these points for discussion. Congress is reviewing the Proposed Federal Rules, and the final …

The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has approved a uniform code of evidence for all federal courts. Amendments to the Supreme Court's rules are now pending in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of a specialist in the law of evidence, Professor Rothstein analyzes the differences between the Supreme Court's proposals and the House amendments and suggests solutions to these conflicts.

Out-Of-State Witnesses And Compulsory Process: The Indigent Defendant's Rights

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Almost every state permits persons convicted of a crime to testify in either their own or another person's behalf. Nonetheless, these states allow evidence of a person's prior criminal conviction to be used to impeach his credibility. The use of this method of impeachment in criminal trials has been the subject of substantial adverse criticism; yet, the practice remains widespread. This article first will discuss the problems that arise from the use of prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes in criminal trials and then will examine several proposals that would restrict the use of such evidence. Finally, the article will …

Miranda Warnings And The Harmless Error Doctrine: Comments On The Indiana Approach, Michael W. Fruehwald

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Motion In Liminie In Criminal Trials: A Technique For The Pretrial Exclusion Of Prejudicial Evidence, Henry B. Rothblatt, David H. Leroy

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Mere Evidence Rule: Need For Re-Evaluation, Leona M. Hudak

Cleveland State Law Review

This article is limited to the "mere evidence rule" as enunciated in Gouled v. United States; a brief historical sketch of the genesis of the search warrant; the two landmark decisions leading to Gouled; and, an overview of its impact upon American law, with reference to major landmark decisions. A thorough study of the rule and its application and interpretation in the various courts of the United States is book-length in proportion, as the numerous case entries under Gouled in the several editions of Shepard's United States Citations clearly illustrate. Wigmore provides a fairly comprehensive listing of decisions on illegal …

Recent Developments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Evidence--Expert Witness--Qualification Of Specialist As Expert Witness In Medical Malpractice, Richard Edwin Rowe

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Counsel And The Role Of Counsel In Juvenile Court Proceedings, Daniel L. Skoler

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium on Juvenile Problems: In re Gault

'Custodial Interrogation' Within The Meaning Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

The primary conceptual hurdle confronting the Miranda Court was the "legal reasoning" that any and all police interrogation is unaffected by the privilege against self-incrimination because such interrogation does not involve any kind of judicial process for the taking of testimony; inasmuch as police officers have no legal authority to compel statements of any kind, there is no legal obligation, ran the argument, to which a privilege can apply. See, e.g., the discussion and authorities collected in Kamisar, A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the "New" Fifth Amendment and the Old "Voluntariness" Test, 65 MICH. L. REv. …

The Consent Problem In Wiretapping & Eavesdropping: Surreptitious Monitoring With The Consent Of A Participant In A Conversation, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

The extent to which American society should permit wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping has been considered by judges, legislators and scholars for many years, although this consideration has yet to result in legal rules that respond rationally and consistently to the conflicting demands of privacy and effective law enforcement. Constitutional analysis has, until very recently, relied on concepts like "physical invasion of a constitutionally protected area," producing distinctions with little relation to underlying social values; statutory restrictions on wiretapping have been much more severe than those imposed on eavesdropping, though the latter, particularly in light of the rapidly developing technology, poses …

Criminal Procedure—Indictment—Evidence Inadmissible At Trial Is Inadmissible In Grand Jury Proceedings, Michael Nelson

Buffalo Law Review

West v. United States, 359 F.2d 50 (8th Cir.), cert. denied mem., 87 Sup. Ct. 131 (1966).

The Citizen On Trial: The New Confession Rules, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Commenting on why it has taken the United States so long to apply "the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel to the proceedings in the stationhouse as well as to those in the courtroom" - as the Supreme Court did in Miranda v. Arizona - this author notes that, "To a large extent this is so because here, as elsewhere, there has been a wide gap between the principles to which we aspire and the practices we actually employ."

Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence Before The Grand Jury As A Basis For Dismissing The Indictment

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Observations On The Origin And Structure Of Evidence Rules Under The Common Law System And The Civil Law System Of "Free Proof" In The German Code Of Criminal Procedure, Karl H. Kunert

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proof By Confession, O. John Rogge

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Psychiatrist As An Expert Witness: Some Ruminations And Speculations, Bernard L. Diamond, David W. Louisell

Michigan Law Review

Consider the difference between the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon in a personal injury suit and the testimony of a psychiatrist in a murder trial in which some elements of the mens rea are at issue. In both instances an expert opinion is received in evidence, providing the trier of fact with technical, specialized information which must, or should, be available in order to permit a rational decision-making process. Well-established rules govern the nature of expert evidence and its mode of presentation. In legal theory, the orthopedic surgeon and the psychiatrist are both experts-physicians-who perform comparable functions in the …