Law Commons^™

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues. For example, lawyers engaged in civil litigation should be aware of decisions addressing the admissibility of collateral source payments and offers to pay medical bills in tort actions. Also, the court of appeals struggled with the question of whether the forfeiture of a bond posted in response to a traffic citation is admissible in a subsequent civil action as an admission of liability. With regard to criminal law, decisions rendered during the survey period suggest that at least some members of the supreme court will be taking a …

Arizona V. Evans: Carving Out Another Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Sara Gilbert

Mercer Law Review

In Arizona v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence seized incident to an arrest, when the arrest resulted from inaccurate computer data created by court personnel. In January 1991, police arrested Isaac Evans during a routine traffic stop because the patrol car's computer indicated he was the subject of an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. While being handcuffed, Evans dropped a marijuana cigarette. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a bag of marijuana hidden under the passenger seat, and Evans was charged with possession. Upon notifying the justice court of the …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The publication of this, article marks the tenth time the Mercer Law Review has honored the author by asking him to survey Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. While some may argue the Review has returned to the same well entirely too many times, ten years of analyzing Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions cannot help but to give some perspective and, perhaps, even some insight into the court's decisions. In this regard, there can be no doubt that the Eleventh Circuit has dramatically reduced its level of scrutiny of evidentiary issues. In the late 1980s, it could be fairly said that the court …

Experts, Judges, And Commentators: The Underlying Debate About An Expert's Underlying Data, Ronald L. Carlson

Mercer Law Review

Debate concerning the limits of judicial power over expert witnesses remains active and in its early stages. Commentators charting the course of judicial opinions observe that some of the modem regulatory proposals have yet to enlist official adoption. Part of the problem may relate to recognition of questions. Courts will adjudicate critical issues only when they are made aware of them. The burden of calling attention to an expert's flawed bases falls squarely on trial lawyers who must make astute and incisive objections.

In this formative period of legal development important decisions will be made. The future direction of courtroom …

Developing A Coherent Theory Of The Structure Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 703, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Mercer Law Review

Some commentators have suggested that the American judicial hearing is becoming trial by expert. As recently as 1974, the Jury Verdict Reporter for Cook County, Illinois, listed only 188 regularly testifying experts? Today, there are more than 3,100-a 1,540 percent increase. In the late 1980s, the Cook County state courts averaged one expert per trial. In some areas, the trend is even more pronounced. In the early 1990s, the Rand Corporation released a study of the use of experts in trials in California courts of general jurisdiction. Expert witnesses appeared in eighty-six percent of the trials studied, an average of …

The Allure Of The Illogic: A Coherent Solution For Rule 703 Requires More Than Redefining "Facts Or Data", Paul R. Rice

Mercer Law Review

In his article entitled Developing A Coherent Theory of the Structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 703, Professor Imwinkelried proposes a theory for the interpretation of Rule 703. He argues that a restrictive interpretation of the terms "facts or data" in Rule 703 would resolve the conflicts that have plagued that Rule. Professor Imwinkelried's proposal would exclude research data and other background facts from the definition of "facts or data." By his interpretation, when an expert is testifying to an opinion based on facts that have not been proven at the trial the expert witness may only rely on …