Digital Commons Network^™

Why Would You Say That? Addressing Systemic Injustice In The Evidentiary Standard For Opposing Party Statements, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2021), Hugh Mundy, L. Alexandra Mcdonald

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Disruption Of Covid-19: How A Virtual World Creates Opportunity For Improvement In The Criminal Justice System’S Treatment Of Complainants Of Sexual Violence, Leah Roberston

Law in a Post-Pandemic World

This paper argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has normalized video conferencing within the legal system such that survivors ought to be able to routinely testify outside of the court environment. Though there have always been high rates of sexualized violence, the onset of the pandemic has led to increased rates of sexualized violence, which could lead to greater numbers of trials prosecuting perpetrators. However, only a small amount of complainants turn to the court as a form of justice. This is likely due to the inhumane conditions inflicted on complainants during the trial process. The pandemic has revealed that the …

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

You Can't Trust Everything On The Internet: A Look Into Texas' And Maryland's Approach Of Social Media Authentication, Danielle Orr

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

If unauthenticated evidence is admitted into the court's record, and makes a defendant’s charge more probable, that defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to life and liberty have been violated. Social media evidence, due to the ease of hacking and catfishing, can be unreliable, thus Maryland and Texas have led the way, with two respective approaches, on how to handle such evidence. Maryland, with its proscribed three authentication methods, has a less trusting view of social media, and realizes the dangers wrongfully entered evidence may have on a defendant’s due process. Alternatively, Texas has not heighten scrutiny on social media …

Confrontation In The Age Of Plea Bargaining [Comments], William Ortman

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Biased Algorithm: The Danger Of Admitting Facial Recognition Technology Results In The Courtroom, Gabrielle M. Haddad

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

From unlocking an iPhone to Facebook “tags,” facial recognition technology has become increasingly commonplace in modern society. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and call for police reform in the United States, it is important now more than ever to consider the implications of law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. A study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that facial recognition algorithms generated higher rates of false positives for Black faces—sometimes up to one hundred times more false identifications—than white faces. Given the embedded bias of this technology and its increased prevalence, the …

Neither “Post-War” Nor Post-Pregnancy Paranoia: How America’S War On Drugs Continues To Perpetuate Disparate Incarceration Outcomes For Pregnant, Substance-Involved Offenders, Becca S. Zimmerman

Pitzer Senior Theses

This thesis investigates the unique interactions between pregnancy, substance involvement, and race as they relate to the War on Drugs and the hyper-incarceration of women. Using ordinary least square regression analyses and data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, I examine if (and how) pregnancy status, drug use, race, and their interactions influence two length of incarceration outcomes: sentence length and amount of time spent in jail between arrest and imprisonment. The results collectively indicate that pregnancy decreases length of incarceration outcomes for those offenders who are not substance-involved but not evenhandedly -- benefitting white …

The Forensic Interviewer At Trial: Guidelines For The Admission And Scope Of Expert Testimony Concerning A Forensic Interview In A Case Of Child Abuse (Revised And Expanded), Victor I. Vieth

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy As Privilege: The Stored Communications Act And Internet Evidence, Rebecca Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article exposes a profound and growing injustice that major technology companies have propagated through every level of the judiciary under the guise of protecting data privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly proclaimed: “In our judicial system, the public has a right to every [person’s] evidence.” Yet, for over a decade, Facebook, GitHub, Google, Instagram, Microsoft, and Twitter have leveraged the Stored Communications Act (SCA) — a key data privacy law for the internet — to bar criminal defendants from subpoenaing the contents of another’s online communications, even when those communications could exonerate the wrongfully accused. Every appellate court to …

The Evidence Rules That Convict The Innocent, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Over the past decades, DNA testing has uncovered hundreds of examples of the most important type of trial errors: innocent defendants convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder. The resulting Innocence Movement spurred reforms to police practices, forensic science, and criminal procedure. This Article explores the lessons of the Innocence Movement for American evidence law.

Commentators often overlook the connection between the growing body of research on convictions of the innocent and the evidence rules. Of the commonly identified causes of false convictions, only flawed forensic testimony has received sustained attention as a matter of evidence law. But other …

Junk Evidence: A Call To Scrutinize Historical Cell Site Location Evidence, Victoria Saxe

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

Historical cell site location information (CSLI) has been offered as objective, scientific location evidence in criminal trials, but is far less precise than the claims it is used to support. Not only is there no way to pinpoint a cellphone’s precise geographic location from historical CSLI, but there are also no known validation or error rates for the methodologies used to collect and analyze this data. A 2019 telecommunications scandal in Denmark revealed gross inadequacies in the cellphone data and software used by law enforcement to analyze this type of evidence. The scandal sent shockwaves through the country’s legal community …

Incorporating Social Science Into Criminal Defense Practice, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

In recent decades, social scientists have created a treasure trove of empirical and sociological data that defenders can and should use to help their clients. Evidence rules, criminal law, and criminal procedure are filled with concepts informed by social science. When is evidence likely to unfairly prejudice a defendant in the eyes of a jury? Do police interact differently with members of minority populations and how should that inform concepts of reasonableness? How easy or difficult is it for people to identify individuals they see during high-stress criminal episodes? How effective are police interrogation tactics at getting at the truth …

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.

Professor Jeffrey Bellin: Reflections On The Fall 2020 Semester, Jeffrey Bellin

Law School Personal Reflections on COVID-19

No abstract provided.

Excessive Force: Justice Requires Refining State Qualified Immunity Standards For Negligent Police Officers, Angie Weiss

Seattle University Law Review Online

At the time this Note was written, there was no Washington state equivalent of the § 1983 Civil Rights Act. As plaintiffs look to the Washington state courts as an alternative to federal courts, they will find that Washington state has a different structure of qualified immunity protecting law enforcement officers from liability.

In this Note, Angie Weiss recommends changing Washington state's standard of qualified immunity. This change would ensure plaintiffs have a state court path towards justice when they seek to hold law enforcement officers accountable for harm. Weiss explains the structure and context of federal qualified immunity; compares …

Preventing Wrongful Conviction Caused By Eyewitness (Mis)Identification: Establishing A Presumption Of Unreliability, Bailey D. Barnes

Faculty Publications

Wrongful convictions are inherently antithetical to a key tenant of the system of criminal justice in the United States, which former Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland shrewdly articulated as to ensure that "guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Reaching even further into the foundations of the common law, the great legal commentator William Blackstone stated of wrongful convictions that "the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." This core principle of American justice was bolstered by the statements of two key Founding Fathers, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Adams stated of …

Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …

Must A Friend Indeed Reveal A Friend’S Misdeed? Exploring The Merits Of A Friendship Privilege, Michael D. Moberly

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Child Abuse And Cannabis Use: How A Prima Facie Standard Mischaracterizes Parental Cannabis Consumption As Child Neglect, Jasmine Harris

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Buy One Get One Free": How Reindictment Policies Permit Excessive Searches, Katie Carroll

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government decides to stop prosecuting a case, it files a nolle prosequi with the court. Nolle prosequis are slightly different from motions to dismiss. Unlike a motion to dismiss with prejudice, a prosecutor may later reindict a defendant with the same crime without a double jeopardy issue arising after dropping the same case through nolle prosequi. Furthermore, many states do not require judicial approval for a nolle prosequi. Therefore, prosecutors can gain a number of advantages by using nolle prosequi, like avoiding speedy trial deadlines or having a second chance to win important evidentiary hearings.

The advantages of …

Truth And Justice Vs. The Integrity Of The Family Unit: Family Members' Testimonies From A Comparative And Normative Viewpoint, Dr. Guy Ben-David

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Arrest Circumstances, And Felony Cocaine Case Processing, Jacqueline G. Lee, Alexander Testa

Criminal Justice Faculty Publications and Presentations

Case evidence and situational arrest characteristics are widely speculated to influence courtroom actor decisions, yet such measures are infrequently included in research. Using new data on felony cocaine cases from an urban county in a Southern non-guideline state, this study examines how physical evidence and arrest circumstances affect three stages of case processing: initial charge type, charge reduction, and sentence length. The influence of evidence appeared strongest at the early stage when prosecutors chose the appropriate charge, though certain evidentiary and arrest measures continued to influence later decisions. Charge reductions were driven mostly by legal factors, and while guilt should …

Reviving “Dead Letters”: Reimagining Federal Rule Of Evidence 410 As A Conditional Privilege, Peter G. Cornick

Vanderbilt Law Review

Though understudied relative to its fellow specialized relevance rules, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 protects a crucial element of the criminal justice system: plea negotiations. As written, the rule prevents the admission of evidence gathered during plea discussions, which helps assure criminal defendants that their candid discussions with prosecutors will not harm them in any future proceeding. But the Supreme Court has greatly weakened Rule 410, permitting broad waiver of the rule’s protections that run afoul of Congress’s purpose in creating the rule and its plain language. In light of these developments, the Note argues that Rule 410 should be …

Secret Conviction Programs, Meghan J. Ryan

Washington and Lee Law Review

Judges and juries across the country are convicting criminal defendants based on secret evidence. Although defendants have sought access to the details of this evidence—the results of computer programs and their underlying algorithms and source codes—judges have generally denied their requests. Instead, judges have prioritized the business interests of the for-profit companies that developed these “conviction programs” and which could lose market share if the secret algorithms and source codes on which the programs are based were exposed. This decision has jeopardized criminal defendants’ constitutional rights.

A Brief Essay Defending The Doctrine Of Objective Chances As A Valid Theory For Introducing Evidence Of An Accused’S Uncharged Misconduct, Edward J. Imwinkelried

New Mexico Law Review

Rule 404(b) has been described as the most controversial of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In many states, errors in the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence are the most common ground for reversal in criminal cases. Testimony about an accused’s other crimes can be so prejudicial that it is “often virtually decisive of the whole case.”

It would be a mistake to jettison the character evidence prohibition altogether. Evidence reformers should focus on improving the administration of the doctrine of objective chances rather than seeking its abolition.

Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Meaning Of A Misdemeanor In A Post-Ferguson World: Evaluating The Reliability Of Prior Conviction Evidence, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

Despite evidence that America’s low-level courts are overburdened, unreliable, and structurally biased, sentencing judges continue to uncritically consider a defendant’s criminal history in fashioning an appropriate punishment. Misdemeanor courts lack many of the procedural safeguards that are thought to ensure accuracy and reliability. As with other stages of the criminal justice system, people of color and poor people are disproportionately burdened with the inaccuracies of the misdemeanor system.

This Article examines instances in which sentencing courts have looked behind the mere fact of a prior conviction and assessed whether that prior conviction offered any meaningful insight for the subsequent sentence. …

Recalibrating Suspicion In An Era Of Hazy Legality, Deborah Ahrens

Seattle University Law Review

After a century of employing varying levels of prohibition enforced by criminal law, the United States has entered an era where individual states are rethinking marijuana policy, and the majority of states have in some way decided to make cannabis legally available. This symposium Article will offer a description of what has happened in the past few years, as well as ideas for how jurisdictions can use the changing legal status of cannabis to reshape criminal procedure more broadly. This Article will recommend that law enforcement no longer be permitted use the smell of marijuana as a reason to search …

Evidence, Rollie Thompson

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

“Evidence” is what, in our adversary system, the parties attempt to place before the neutral factfinder in order to prove their case (or disprove their opponent's case). We follow the principle of party-presentation: parties determine what specific items of evidence are offered for proof, while the impartial judge or decision maker will determine which items are “admissible” evidence, in accordance with principles of law. At the end of the trial or hearing, the fact-finder (jury, judge, tribunal, decision maker) will determine which of those admissible items of evidence are believed or not, in formulating “fact-guesses” or “findings of fact”.