Law Commons^™

The Phases And Faces Of The Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation James E. Coleman, Jr., James E. Coleman Jr., Angela Davis, Michael Gerhardt, K.C. Johnson, Lyrissa Lidsky, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Scholarship

This panel took place at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools ("SEALS") in July 2008 in West Palm Beach, Florida

Wanting The Truth: Comparing Prosecutions Of Investigative And Institutional Deception, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

Defensive dishonesty in criminal investigations has increasingly been prosecuted without standards for identifying harmful deception or other meaningful checks on prosecutorial discretion. Although they are often grouped together statistically and evaluated as comparable crimes, there is a clear distinction between investigative lies and in-court perjury. The differences between the offenses—including the standards for prosecution, the perceived victim, and the purposes of bringing charges—suggest reasons to reconsider the current approach to investigative lies such as false statements. More truth is produced, and arguably more cooperation results, when the government focuses on the quality of the information flow. The structural protections in …

The Special Threat Of Informants To The Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing “First Drafts,” Recording Incentives, And Taking A Fresh Look At The Evidence, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

Fabricated testimony by informants often plays an important role in convictions of the innocent. In this article, I examine the particularly problematic situation of defendants who are innocent of the particular crime charged but are not strangers to crime. As to such defendants, potential informants abound among crime associates, and they have a ready story line that authorities are preconditioned to accept. Independent proof, which could be an antidote, will predictably be lacking. Indeed, that the informant has exclusive, critical knowledge often leads the prosecution to offer particularly tempting deals.

I focus on the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, a …

Softening The Formality And Formalism Of The “Testimonial” Statement Concept, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the United States Supreme Court ruled that “testimonial” statements are the core, perhaps exclusive, concern of the Confrontation Clause. The Court began a process of defining the testimonial-statement concept but did not develop a comprehensive definition. In Crawford, the Court concluded that a statement was testimonial, which was tape recorded and obtained from a criminal suspect who was in police custody, had been given warnings under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and was being interrogated by known governmental agents using what the Court termed “structured” questioning. One of the definitions the Court explicitly presented as a …

Science, Intersubjective Validity, And Judicial Legitimacy, Richard B. Katskee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Exculpatory Evidence, Ethics, And The Road To The Disbarment Of Mike Nifong: The Critical Importance Of Full Open-File Discovery, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case, was disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar in June 2007 principally for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence and for making false statements about his conduct. This article relates the central details of his actions and the process that led to disbarment. Its key overall insight is that full open-file discovery was the figurative workhorse and hero in the Nifong disbarment saga. That saga was itself strongly affected by two earlier death penalty cases where prosecutors also failed to provide exculpatory information to the defense. The constitutional doctrine in Brady v. …

Proportionality In The Post-Hoc Analysis Of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Conor R. Crowley, Leslie Wharton

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This essay focuses on the limits of deception practiced before the suspect waives his or her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In Miranda, the Court stated: [A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the suspect did not voluntarily waive his privilege. The quotation appears to forbid any evidence of threats, tricks, or cajolery, which contributes to a waiver of the privilege, creating a per se exclusion. However, in Moran v. Burbine (1986), the Court shifts focus away from the nature of the police conduct to its effect on …

The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster - a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it …

Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: “A Little Child Shall Lead Them”, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court radically transformed the analysis of the Confrontation Clause for hearsay, but left many specific questions unanswered. Two years later in Davis v. Washington (2006), it revisited the subject and answered a few of the unresolved issues, but again left much in doubt, apparently reorienting the focus of the testimonial definition from that of the party making the statement to that of the person receiving it. One of the areas where the new doctrine has greatest potential importance is in cases involving children, particularly cases involving physical and sexual abuse. The importance derives …

Case Comment, Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Evidence History, The New Trace Evidence And Rumblings In The Future Of Proof, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This paper is in two parts. The first part is about developments in the rules of evidence and particularly about developments in the federal rules of evidence, which has had a major impact on evidence rules in many states. This part turns out to be largely about the past because my sense is that the impact of changes in the formal rules of evidence, which were substantial, are largely historic. To be sure future changes in the formal rules, particularly those that may be made as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004) that dramatically …

Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witnesses, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the United States Supreme Court radically altered Confrontation Clause analysis for the admission of hearsay statements. It created a very firm rule of actual confrontation for a narrowed class of covered hearsay, termed “testimonial statements,” and created only a limited number of exceptions. This new regime differed dramatically from the trustworthiness/reliability mode of analysis of Ohio v. Roberts (1980), which provided very wide but incredibly shallow protection against the admission of hearsay offered by the prosecution against the defendant. This article analyzes the basic teachings and uncertainties left in the wake of Crawford, sifting through …

Crawford’S Impact On Hearsay Statements In Domestic Violence And Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines the important ancillary doctrines that need to be developed in the wake of Crawford v. Washington (2004) and the "testimonial statement" approach to Confrontation Clause analysis to ensure that when confrontation is provided it in fact satisfies the requirements of the Clause. More than just some opportunity to cross-examine is required. The witness must be asked to make a public accusation in his or her direct testimony rather than simply being made available for questioning by defense counsel. A public accusation in not simply an after-thought of the right; rather, both it and cross-examination are central components. …

“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The definition that the Supreme Court ultimately gives to the concept of testimonial statements will obviously be of critical importance in determining whether the new Confrontation Clause analysis adopted by Crawford affects only a few core statements or applies to a broader group of accusatorial statements knowingly made to government officials and perhaps private individuals at arm's length from the speaker. I contend that the broader definition is more consistent with the anti-inquisitorial roots of the Confrontation Clause when that provision is applied in the modern world. If my sense of the proper scope of the clause is roughly correct, …

Gaining/Losing Perspective On The Law, Or Keeping Digital Evidence In Perspective, Christopher J. Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Impeachment And Rehabilitation Under The Maryland Rules Of Evidence: An Attorney's Guide, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Evidence: Prior Crimes And Prior Bad Acts Evidence, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.