Digital Commons Network^™

Notes On Minority Report, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Policing, Place, And Race, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trawling Dna Databases For Partial Matches: What Is The Fbi Afraid Of?, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

DNA evidence is often presented as the “gold standard” for forensic science. But this was not always the case. For years, eminent scientists complained that the estimates of the tiny frequencies of DNA types were unfounded. It took scores of research papers, dozens of judicial opinions, and two committees of the National Academy of Sciences to resolve the dispute by the mid-1990s. Since 2000, however, reports have surfaced of shocking numbers of “partial matches” among samples within large DNA databases, and some scientists have complained that the infinitesimal figures used in court to estimate the probability of a random match …

Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …

When The Lawyer Knows The Client Is Guilty: Client Confessions In Legal Ethics, Popular Culture, And Literature, Michael Asimow, Richard H. Weisberg

Articles

The article explores the ethical dilemma faced by criminal defense lawyers when they know their client is factually guilty but the client insists on a vigorous defense. It examines the tension between the lawyer’s duty of zealous representation and the duty of candor toward the court, proposing a compromise that allows lawyers discretion to choose between strong or weak adversarial approaches based on the context. The analysis draws on historical cases, such as the Courvoisier case of 1840 and the modern case of Steven Feldman, as well as insights from popular culture and literary sources, to argue that the discretionary …

Propensity Or Stereotype?: A Bad Evidence Experiment In Indian Country, Aviva Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning rape and child abuse, Rules 413 and 414, permit the government to admit the accused’s prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Although these rules have been roundly criticized, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that in allowing propensity evidence for federal sex offenses (as opposed to offenses under state law), these rules disproportionately affect one distinct civilian population: Indians.

The de facto concentration of Rules 413-414 cases in Indian Country raises troubling questions regarding what it means to have …

The Right To Silence Helps The Innocent: A Response To Critics, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination Doctrine Is Dead; Long Live Self-Incrimination Doctrine: Confessions, Scientific Evidence, And The Anxieties Of The Liberal State, Kenworthey Bilz

Cardozo Law Review

Confessions have historically been the most compelling evidence the state could offer at a criminal trial. However, improvements in forensic technologies have led to increased use of scientific evidence, such as DNA typing, videotapes, pattern-recognition software, location tracking devices, and the like, with very impressive rates of reliability. The reliability of these methods has become so impressive, in fact, that it far outstrips confessions. This should lead to a reduced reliance on confessions (and other nonscientific evidence, such as eyewitness identifications) over time. However, this does not mean that the doctrine of self-incrimination, which regulates the acquisition and use of …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The most significant news during the current survey period, as in the past several survey periods, continued to be the judiciary's struggles with "tort reform" legislation enacted by the Georgia General Assembly in 2005, most notably Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 24-9-67.1 which purports to adopt, more or less, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. If the Daubert decisions discussed in this survey are any indication, Georgia's appellate courts are far from reaching a consensus on the proper application and interpretation of Georgia's Daubert statute.

Introduction: Wherefor The Privilege?, Kate Stith

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Confessional Penalty, Talia Fisher, Issachar Rosen-Zvi

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deregulating Guilt: The Information Culture Of The Criminal System, Alexandra Natapoff

Cardozo Law Review

The criminal system has an uneasy relationship with information. On the one hand, the criminal process is centrally defined by stringent evidentiary and information rules and a commitment to public transparency. On the other, largely due to the dominance of plea bargaining, criminal liability is determined by all sorts of unregulated, non-public information that never pass through the quality control of evidentiary, discovery, or other criminal procedure restrictions. The result is a process that generates determinations of liability that are often unmoored from systemic information constraints. This phenomenon is exemplified, and intensified, by the widespread use of criminal informants, or …

Theorizing About Self-Incrimination, Ronald J. Allen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

How The Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts' approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence - the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts' reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the five-factor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts' reinterpretation of the framework …

Toward Ethical Plea Bargaining, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

Defendants in criminal cases are overwhelmingly more likely to plead guilty than to go to trial. Presumably, at least a part of the reason that most of them do so is that it is in their interest to plead guilty, i.e., they will receive a more favorable outcome if they plead guilty than if they go to trial. The extent to which pleas reflect fair or rational compromises in practice, however, depends upon a variety of factors, including the amount of information each of the parties has about the case. Some level of informational symmetry therefore is critical to the …

The Right To Silence Helps The Innocent: A Response To Critics, Alex Stein

Cardozo Law Review

This Article responds to the numerous critics of Daniel J Seidmann & Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege, 114 HARV. L. REV. 430 (2000). Under Seidmann and Stein's theory, the right to silence protects innocents who find themselves unable to corroborate their self-exonerating accounts by verifiable evidence. Absent the right, guilty criminals would pool with innocents by making false self-exonerating statements. Factfinders would consequently discount the probative value of all uncorroborated exculpatory statements, at the expense of those innocents who cannot corroborate their true accounts. The right to …

Confessing In The Human Voice: A Defense Of The Privilege Against Selfincrimination, Andrew E. Taslitz

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a cornerstone of American constitutional law, yet it faces erosion through recent Supreme Court rulings and scholarly critiques. The article presents a novel defense of this privilege, focusing on the protection of the "literal voice" and "metaphorical voice," arguing that compelled speech uniquely harms dignity, identity, and autonomy. It critiques existing justifications as insufficient and proposes a framework rooted in social science and linguistic compulsion, emphasizing the privilege's role in preventing state overreach and safeguarding individual autonomy.

Maintaining The Presumption Of Innocence In Date Rape Trials Through The Use Of Language Orders: State V. Safi And The Banning Of The Word "Rape", Jason Wool

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

This note evaluates the use of language orders in date rape trials in which the defense is consent through a case study of State v. Safi, in which Tory Bowen claims that Pamir Safi date raped her. In that case, the trial judge granted a motion by the defense to prevent the prosecution and any of their witnesses from using words such as "rape" and "sexual assault." Using State v. Safi as a starting point, the author examines the use of such trial orders from the perspective of both defendants and victims. The author concludes that a modified version of …

The Significance (If Any) For The Federal Criminal Justice System Of Advances In Lie Detector Technology, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Against a backdrop of accelerating developments in the science of lie detection certain to reopen the debate on the reliability and therefore admissibility of lie detector evidence in the federal courts, this Article examines whether the prohibition on hearsay evidence (or other evidentiary objections) will preclude admissibility of even scientifically reliable lie detector evidence. The Article concludes that the hearsay prohibition, which has been largely ignored by courts and commentators, is the primary obstacle to the future admission of scientifically valid lie detector evidence. The Article also suggests a potential solution to the hearsay problem that may allow admission of …

Eyewitness Identification Reform In Massachusetts, Stanley Z. Fisher

Faculty Scholarship

This article traces the impact of the new scientific learning upon police eyewitness identification procedures in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Over the past 25 years, experimental psychologists have devised more reliable techniques for gathering eyewitness identification evidence than have been traditionally used by police. Massachusetts has over 350 autonomous municipal police departments, plus approximately 39 college campus police departments, the state police, and the MBTA (transit) Police Department. The decision how to investigate crime rests principally with the police chief responsible for each department. How does such a system of policing absorb new, scientifically superior methods of investigation?

The Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

William & Mary Law Review

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …

A Return To The Grand Jury To Promote A Zen Zeal In Prosecutors, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

DNA evidence has freed at least 209 convicted people. Sometimes DNA evidence exonerates a person. Other times, it does not. When it does not exonerate, a prosecutor must decide whether to persist in further prosecution of the defendant. I propose a fresh, but simple, solution for prosecutors who face such choices. To protect the interests of defendants and victims, and to assuage society’s need for fair and accurate outcomes, prosecutors should represent these cases to a grand jury. The grand jury is an easily convened neutral party that can dispassionately evaluate the evidence, old and new, and determine whether a …

Improving The Reliability Of Criminal Trials Through Legal Rules That Encourage Defendants To Testify, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Reflecting a traditional bias against defendants' trial testimony, the modern American criminal justice system, which now recognizes a constitutional right to testify at trial, unabashedly encourages defendants to waive that right and remain silent. As a result, a large percentage of criminal defendants decline to testify, forcing juries to decide the question of the defendant's guilt without ever hearing from the person most knowledgeable on the subject.

This Article contends that the inflated percentage of silent defendants in the American criminal trial system is a needless, self-inflected wound, neither required by the Constitution nor beneficial to the search for truth. …

Juror Comprehension And The Hard Case: Making Forensic Evidence Simpler, Mark Findlay

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The complexity/comprehension nexus as it impacts on juror decision-making is addressed in the particular context of prosecution-led DNA evidence. Such evidence is for jurors the subject of pre-trial preconceptions, and is notoriously difficult to present and argue before a jury. The article looks at the comprehension of forensic evidence by jurors, a task qualified by the opinion of legal professionals whose responsibility it is to present and interpret such evidence in adversarial contexts.Jurors were surveyed post-verdict in trials where forensic evidence featured in circumstantial cases. These insights into comprehension were qualified by contesting views of legal professionals, and critical reflections …

Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Crime, Legitimacy, And Testilying, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Always Be Disclosing: The Prosecutor's Constitutional Duty To Divulge Inadmissible Evidence, Brian D. Ginsberg

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brain Images As Legal Evidence, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Adina Roskies, Teneille R. Brown, Emily Murphy

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper explores whether brain images may be admitted as evidence in criminal trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which weighs probative value against the danger of being prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to fact finders. The paper summarizes and evaluates recent empirical research relevant to these issues. We argue that currently the probative value of neuroimages for criminal responsibility is minimal, and there is some evidence of their potential to be prejudicial or misleading. We also propose experiments that will directly assess how jurors are influenced by brain images.

Even Better Than The Real Thing: How Courts Have Been Anything But Liberal In Finding Genuine Questions Raised As To The Authenticity Of Originals Under Rule 1003, Colin Miller

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.