Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland
It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Texas, no uniform approach exists in determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction as a technique to impeach a witness. This lack of uniformity leads to significant consequences for the parties and poses a potential prejudicial effect on the truthful character of a witness. Furthermore, there is currently no bright-line judicial standard when evaluating the admissibility of certain prior convictions. Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Theus v. State provided a non-exhaustive set of factors for trial judges to consider, the court has yet to clarify particular aspects of how to properly apply Texas Rule …
Images Of Expertise: Converging Discourses On The Use And Abuse Of Science In Massachusetts V. Epa, David S. Caudill
Images Of Expertise: Converging Discourses On The Use And Abuse Of Science In Massachusetts V. Epa, David S. Caudill
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Punishment Evidence: Grunsfeld Ten Years Later., Edward L. Wilkinson
Punishment Evidence: Grunsfeld Ten Years Later., Edward L. Wilkinson
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Article deals with the admissible evidence during the punishment phase of a non-capital trial in Texas. In 1989, the Texas Legislature amended Article 37.07, Section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to widen the scope of evidence admissible during the punishment phase of a non-capital trial. Grunsfel v. State, the leading case, the Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the statute so narrowly as to render the changes meaningless. In 1993, the legislature amended the statute a second time; it provided for a more expansive range of evidence to be introduced, but deleted a critical definition of what …
It Is Not So Simply Because An Expert Says It Is So: The Reliability Of Gang Expert Testimony Regarding Membership In Criminal Street Gangs: Pushing The Limits Of Texas Rule Of Evidence 702., Placido G. Gomez
St. Mary's Law Journal
The mechanisms developed by the criminal justice system addressing the criminal activities of street gangs, for the most part, have proved ineffective. The evolution of gangs, their complex structure, and multipurpose focus keep them one step ahead of law enforcement. The most recent weapon created to fight the war on gangs, the civil injunction, suffers from numerous inadequacies. One concern is that civil injunctions raise numerous constitutional concerns. Another is that these injunctions fall short of constitutional demands. Furthermore, the practical implementation of the injunction forces an analysis of the reliability of the gang expert’s testimony. This Article proposes courts …
Causation In Toxic Tort Litigation: Which Way Do We Go, Judge, Laurie Alberts
Causation In Toxic Tort Litigation: Which Way Do We Go, Judge, Laurie Alberts
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
When Science Is Too Daunting: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Federal Courts, And The Struggling Spirit Of Daubert, Carl H. Johnson
When Science Is Too Daunting: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Federal Courts, And The Struggling Spirit Of Daubert, Carl H. Johnson
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Texas Rule Of Evidence 503: Defining Scope Of Employment For Corporations Comment., Craig W. Saunders
Texas Rule Of Evidence 503: Defining Scope Of Employment For Corporations Comment., Craig W. Saunders
St. Mary's Law Journal
The attorney-corporate client privilege should be regarded as encompassing only communications made to the corporation’s counsel by employees in the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the merger of the Civil and Criminal Rules of Evidence. The merger became effective on March 1, 1998 and is now known as the Texas Rules of Evidence. Although the civil and criminal rules often mirror each other, one monumental change is in the new version of Rule 503. This new version significantly alters the analysis used in a corporate context and determines …
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation: The Jury's Role In Resolving The Battle Of The Experts, Joseph C. Kohn
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation: The Jury's Role In Resolving The Battle Of The Experts, Joseph C. Kohn
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Unanswered Questions Of Christophersen V. Allied-Signal Corp., Richard O. Faulk
The Unanswered Questions Of Christophersen V. Allied-Signal Corp., Richard O. Faulk
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Comment Of An Expert: Biomarker Evidence Following Exposure To Pollutants, A. C. Zahalski, P.R. Mcconnachie
Comment Of An Expert: Biomarker Evidence Following Exposure To Pollutants, A. C. Zahalski, P.R. Mcconnachie
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Deposing Expert Witnesses In Environmental Litigation, James B. Burns
Deposing Expert Witnesses In Environmental Litigation, James B. Burns
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
St. Mary's Law Journal
Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …