Law Commons^™

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb

Sherry Colb

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof. I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …

Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael Seigel

Michael L Seigel

The enterprise of this article is the theoretical construction of an optimal solution to the hearsay conundrum. Its first task is the elucidation of the premises upon which a rational hearsay rule can be built. Thus, the article starts by exploring the relationship between hearsay doctrine and the foundation of all rational truth-seeking enterprises, inductive logic. The article continues with an examination of the relationship between hearsay evidence and trial dynamics, for a workable rule must take into account the actual functioning of our adversary system.'" This two-pronged analysis leads to the proposal of a "best evidence hearsay rule."

Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

California has become a Daubert state. In Sargon v. The University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court held that judges are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert or scientific evidence in this state, just as has been the case in the federal system (and many other states) since the decision in Daubert. Now that California is avowedly a Daubert state, it is important to understand why courtroom evidence – scientific, expert or, for that matter, otherwise – is properly grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from experience. Understanding this empirical basis for both Daubert …

Government Denial Under Oath – Hidta, Hemisphere And Parallel Construction, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

In September of last year, the New York Times reported on a remarkable program of the United States Government that involved spying on domestic phone records without a warrant.1 The news had a limited independent impact as it seemed to be lost in the disclosures of Michael Snowden regarding the National Security Administration (NSA), which purportedly was aimed at foreign terrorists but also included domestic targets. Yet, this program, called “Hemisphere,” was authorized by the Office of the President of the United States, Office of Drug Control Policy, under the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program (HIDTA) and it primarily …

Shredded Fish,, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

There are just too many criminal laws and their proliferation has expanded exponentially over the last few decades. This is overcriminalization. In addition, the jurisdiction of federal authorities under general or vague laws has vastly expanded federal criminal prosecution of people and organizations for what otherwise would not be a crime. This is overfederalization and overcriminalization. In this article we will look at the current litigation before the United States Supreme Court that had directly taken on this controversy. The case of Yates v. United States involves briefing by the parties and by amici curae directly invoking and defending the …

Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion Of Rights And Remedies, Leonard Sosnov

Leonard N Sosnov

Over fifty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the Due Process Clause requires prosecutors to disclose materially favorable evidence to the defense. The Brady Court emphasized the need to treat all defendants fairly and to provide each accused with a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. While Brady held great promise for defendants to receive fundamentally fair access to evidence, the subsequent decisions of the Court have fallen short of meeting this promise.

Since Brady, the Court has limited the disclosure obligation by failing to separately determine rights and remedies. Additionally, …