Law Commons^™

A Subject Matter Approach To Hearsay Reform, Roger Park

Michigan Law Review

None of the three major reform proposals - the Model Code, the Uniform Rules, or the original Federal Rules - incorporated a systematic distinction between civil and criminal cases. The thesis of this article is that this distinction should be adopted. This article will explore the reasons for excluding hearsay, and conclude that they support different sets of rules in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, rules excluding hearsay should be curtailed. Hearsay that fits under an established exception should be admitted, and other hearsay, without discretionary screening by the trial judge, should be admitted on proper notice. In …

Bodily Intrusion In Search Of Evidence: A Study In Fourth Amendment Decisionmaking, Michael G. Rogers

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …

Lying On The Stand Won't Cost You A Dime:Should Courts Recognize A Civil Action Intort For Perjury?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …

Seminar On Evidence And Trial Practice, Office Of Continuing Legal Education At The University Of Kentucky College Of Law, Robert G. Lawson, William H. Fortune, Thomas L. Osborne, William R. Garmer, Richard H. Underwood, Robert L. Elliott, Peggy E. Purdom, Andre E. Busald, William J. Kathman

Continuing Legal Education Materials

Outlines of speaker presentations offered during a series of one day seminars on evidence and trial practice offered by UK/CLE in late 1987-early 1988.

1. Sexual Exploitation Of Divorce Clients: The Lawyer's Prerogative, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Taking Evidence And Breaking Treaties: Aerospatiale And The Need For Common Sense, James G. Dwyer, Lois A. Yurow

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ultimate Violation, Todd Maybrown

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Ultimate Violation by Judith Rowland

"There'll Always Be An England": The Instrumental Ideology Of Evidence, Kenneth W. Graham Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore by William Twining

Adjudicative Facts, Non-Evidence Facts, And Permissible Jury Background Information, Richard M. Fraher

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Inadmissible Evidence As A Basis For Expert Opinion Testimony: A Response To Professor Carlson, Paul R. Rice

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits expert witnesses to offer opinions based upon evidence that has not been offered in the proceedings. The Rule also sanctions the expert's basing her opinion on inadmissible evidence if that evidence is "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field informing opinions or inferences upon the subject." In a recent Essay in this Review, Professor Carlson presents a helpful exposition of the confused evidentiary status of this otherwise inadmissible evidence. He correctly notes that the majority of courts refuse to allow the inadmissible evidence upon which the …

Vi. Evidence A.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Hobgoblin Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: An Analysis Of Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Prior Consistent Statements And A New Proposal, Edward D. Ohlbaum

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View, Paula E. Hill, Samuel M. Hill

Michigan Law Review

Increases in the number of reported incidents of child abuse and sexual molestation have resulted in more and younger children becoming courtroom participants. Some courts refuse to consider the special needs of the child in this adversarial environment. Relying on questionable precedent, these courts hold that the defendant's right to directly confront the child, as well as strict compliance with evidentiary rules, overrides that child's interest in freedom from embarrassment or psychological trauma. This Note focuses on pressures felt by the testifying child and the ways in which these pressures affect her testimony; it then proposes using videotaped testimony as …

Impeachment With An Unsworn Prior Inconsistent Statement As Subterfuge, Dan Johnson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Implied Hearsay: Defusing The Battle Line Between Pragmatism And Theory, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

A return to the emotionally neutral fundamentals of the hearsay rule presents the clash between pragmatists and academicians in a setting which is free of the value laden considerations surrounding child abuse cases. This clash arises at the most fundamental level, that of defining hearsay. Many academicians favor a definition of hearsay as evidence whose reliability depends upon the veracity of someone not subject to cross-examination. Pragmatists (particularly trial lawyers) often find this formulation awkward and prefer a concise definition of hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the contents. The choice of definitions can make a …

The Child Witness: Techniques For Direct Examination, Cross-Examination, And Impeachment, John E.B. Myers

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Common Law Remedies Of Employees Injured By Employer Use Of Polygraph Testing, Deborah J. Weimer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Validity Of Tests: Caveant Omnes, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

A great debate swirls about the use of polygraph tests in criminal cases. Similar concerns about individual privacy and freedom arise with proposals and projects involving widespread testing of government employees for drugs and deception. Required diagnostic testing for certain diseases - most notoriously, for AIDS - raises similar concerns. Incorrect conclusions about who has taken illicit drugs, who has AIDS, and who is lying can be devastating. Yet, perfect knowledge is unattainable. Errors are inevitable. Questions of what the tendency is for these tests to err, which measures are appropriate for deciding whether to use a screening test, and …

Evidentiary Use Of Other Crime Evidence: A Survey Of Recent Trends In Criminal Procedure, Susan Stuart

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Eyewitness Identifications And Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

“Syndrome” Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

During 1986-1987, Virginia evidence law has been expanded and clarified. The Court of Appeals has proved to be an important source of evidentiary decisions, and the Supreme Court of Virginia has provided needed guidance in several areas.

A Judicial Perspective On Expert Discovery Under Federal Rule 26(B)(4): An Empirical Study Of Trial Court Judges And A Proposed Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 377 (1987), David S. Day, Charvin Dixon

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kuhlmann V. Wilson: The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel: Government Circumvention Through Surreptitious Interrogation, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 567 (1987), Craig Dow Patton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Casenotes: Evidence — Maryland Adopts The Present Sense Impression Exception To The Hearsay Rule. Booth V. State, 306 Md. 313, 508 A.2d 976 (1986), Jonathan Z. May

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Loss Of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification And Proof Of Guilt, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

It is no news that eyewitness identification in criminal cases is a problem; it is an old and famous problem. Judges and lawyers have long known that the identification of strangers is a chancy matter, and nearly a century of psychological research has confirmed this skeptical view. In 1967 the Supreme Court attempted to mitigate the problem by regulating the use of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials; since then it has retreated part way from that effort. Legal scholars have written a small library of books and articles on this problem, the courts' response to it, and various proposed …

Use Immunity Advisements And The Public Employee's Assertion Of The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar

Articles

Barrett was as talented and as dedicated a law teacher as any of his distinguished (or soon-to-become-distinguished) contemporaries. But Barrett resisted the movement toward new rights in fields where none had existed before. At least, he was quite uneasy about the trend. To be sure, others in law teaching shared Barrett's concern that the clock was spinning too fast. Indeed, some others were quite vociferous about it.' But because his criticism was cerebral rather than emotional - because he fairly stated and fully explored the arguments urging the courts to increase their tempo in developing constitutional rights - Barrett was …