Law Commons^™

Evaluating A Test For Shedding Propensity Using Tape Lifts From Different Skin Locations, Xiao M. Chen

Student Theses

The shedding propensity of a person can assist data interpretation in casework when assessing the possibility of passive transfer for DNA analysis. Past studies on shedding propensity evaluated palmar skin (washed and unwashed) deposits. This study compared different skin locations with respect to shedding propensity, and explored the potential of tape-lifts as a skin surface collection method. Eight different skin types and samples were collected with adhesive tape disks from 28 participants over three non-consecutive days; the washed and unwashed fingers from both hands, toe, and arm, neck below ear, and nape. Samples were extracted, quantified, amplified, genotyped, and evaluated …

"You Should Have Known:" The Need For Evidentiary Notice Requirements In Immigration Court, Marisa Moore Apel

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Haunting Of Her House: How Virginia Law Punishes Women Who Become Mothers Through Rape, Jordan S. Miceli

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

If a rape victim becomes pregnant following the attack, she has three options: abort the pregnancy, place the child for adoption, or keep and raise the child. However, by requiring proof of conviction of rape to terminate the parental rights of the man who fathered that child through his rape, the Commonwealth of Virginia imposes a substantial burden on a victim weighing those options. To obtain a conviction under the current scheme, a victim, through her local prosecutor, has to prove to a jury that the accused committed the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth requires proof of conviction …

Evidentiary Inequality, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

Federal employment discrimination law is rife with evidentiary inequality. Courts allow employers to draw from a broad palette of evidence to defend against discrimination claims, while highly restricting the facts from which plaintiffs can prove their claims. This Article draws from hundreds of cases to show how judges favor the employer's evidence and disfavor the plaintiff's evidence across multiple dimensions, such as time, witnesses, documents, relevance, and reliability. Judges have created a host of named doctrines that severely restrict the evidence plaintiffs are allowed to use to prove their discrimination claims. At the same time, a host of unnamed, and …

Due Process In Prison Disciplinary Hearings: How The “Some Evidence” Standard Of Proof Violates The Constitution, Emily Parker

Washington Law Review

Prison disciplinary hearings have wide-reaching impacts on an incarcerated individual’s liberty. A sanction following a guilty finding is a consequence that stems from hearings and goes beyond mere punishment. Guilty findings for serious infractions, like a positive result on a drug test, can often result in a substantial increase in prison time. Before the government deprives an incarcerated individual of their liberty interest in a shorter sentence, it must provide minimum due process. However, an individual can be found guilty of serious infractions in Washington State prison disciplinary hearings under the “some evidence” standard of proof—a standard that allows for …

Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Advancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are …

Artificial Intelligence As Evidence, Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman, Gordon V. Cormack

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

This article explores issues that govern the admissibility of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) applications in civil and criminal cases, from the perspective of a federal trial judge and two computer scientists, one of whom also is an experienced attorney. It provides a detailed yet intelligible discussion of what AI is and how it works, a history of its development, and a description of the wide variety of functions that it is designed to accomplish, stressing that AI applications are ubiquitous, both in the private and public sectors. Applications today include: health care, education, employment-related decision-making, finance, law enforcement, and the legal …

Evidence, John E. Hall Jr., W. Scott Henwood, Leesa Guarnotta

Mercer Law Review

The 2020 Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic brought with it many firsts, including a year-long moratorium on civil and criminal jury trials. As of June 2021, many counties across the state expected continued stays of civil jury trials. Nevertheless, Georgia’s appellate courts continued to develop Georgia’s evidence laws in the eighth year since the implementation of Georgia’s new Evidence Code. This Article discusses the developing evolution of the new Georgia Evidence Code, Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 24, by addressing developments of Georgia’s evidence rules from the period of June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021. Specifically, this Article addresses: …

Issue Of False Amphetamine Field Test Positives Caused By Sugar. Use Of Baeyer Test As A Secondary Test Solution., Reed A. Knutson, Jennah Duncan, Kara Peightal, Samuel Thomas

Department of Chemistry: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research

The Marquis reagent is a well-established and widely used chemical presumptive test for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and methamphetamine. It is composed of concentrated sulfuric acid and 40% formaldehyde, which act upon alkaloids causing them to complex into larger molecules. This complexation causes a color change that can be visually interpreted as a positive or negative result. Almost any sugar molecule can be complexed in this way as well, due to their many OH groups. Experimentally it was found that the sugar molecules did complex with one another when the Marquis test was administered. The color produced by this reaction was brownish-red. …

Standing By To Protect Child Abuse Victims: Utilizing Standby Counsel In Lieu Of Personal Cross-Examination, Claire Murtha

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Child abuse is a pervasive problem in the United States. Often, the abused child’s word is the only evidence to prove the abuse in court. For this reason, the child’s testimony is critical. Testifying can pose a challenge for the abused child who must face her abuser in the courtroom, especially if that abuser personally questions her.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the legitimate and strong interest the state has in protecting the psychological and physical well-being of children. When a child will face significant trauma and cannot reasonably communicate in the courtroom, the child can be questioned …

The Missing Algorithm: Safeguarding Brady Against The Rise Of Trade Secrecy In Policing, Deborah Won

Michigan Law Review

Trade secrecy, a form of intellectual property protection, serves the important societal function of promoting innovation. But as police departments across the country increasingly rely on proprietary technologies like facial recognition and predictive policing tools, an uneasy tension between due process and trade secrecy has developed: to fulfill Brady’s constitutional promise of a fair trial, defendants must have access to the technologies accusing them, access that trade secrecy inhibits. Thus far, this tension is being resolved too far in favor of the trade secret holder—and at too great an expense to the defendant. The wrong balance has been struck.

This …

The Modest Impact Of The Modern Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin, Diana Bibb

Faculty Publications

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them. A strict reading of this text would transform the criminal justice landscape by prohibiting the prosecution's use of hearsay at trial. But until recently, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clause was closer to the opposite. By tying the confrontation right to traditional hearsay exceptions, the Court's longstanding precedents granted prosecutors broad freedom to use out-of-court statements to convict criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington was supposed to change all that. By severing the link between the …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

The Use Of Expert Witnesses In Gambling Cases, Robert M. Jarvis

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Restoring Causality In Attenuation: Establishing The Breadth Of A Fourth Amendment Violation, Bryan H. Ward

West Virginia Law Review

When the police violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, what often follows is the discovery of incriminating evidence. Sometimes the evidence is discovered directly after the Fourth Amendment violation. In other situations, the evidence comes by a more indirect route and may occur long after the original Fourth Amendment violation. Courts struggle when trying to decide if the discovery of this indirectly obtained evidence was caused by the police misconduct. This causal question is important because causality acts as a limiting principle when deciding when to apply the exclusionary rule. A basic view of the exclusionary rule suggests that evidence …

Law, Fact, And Procedural Justice, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is deceptively complex. Although any first-year law student could properly classify those issues that fall at the polar ends of the law-fact continuum, the Supreme Court has itself acknowledged that the exact dividing line between law and fact—the point where legal inquiries end and factual ones begin—is “slippery,” “elusive,” and “vexing.” But identifying that line is crucially important. Whether an issue is deemed a question of law or a question of fact often influences the appointment of a courtroom decision maker, the scope of appellate review, the administration of certain …

Minding Accidents, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Tort doctrine states that breach is all about conduct. Unlike in the criminal law, where jurors must engage in an amateur form of mindreading to evaluate mens rea, jurors are told that they can assess civil negligence by looking only at how the defendant behaved. But this is false. Foreseeability is at the heart of negligence—appearing as the primary tests for duty, breach, and proximate cause. And yet, we cannot ask whether a defendant should have foreseen a risk without interrogating what he subjectively knew, remembered, perceived, or realized at the time. In fact, the focus on actions in negligence …

Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, Gustavo Ribeiro

Utah Law Review

This Article develops an analytical framework to investigate novel ways in which legal reforms disguised as “substantive” can affect procedural due process safeguards differently among racial groups. Scholars have long recognized the impact evidence rules have on substantive policies, such as modifying primary incentives or affecting the distribution of legal entitlements in society. However, legal scholars have not paid enough attention to the reverse effect: how changes in “substantive law” influence policy objectives traditionally associated with evidence law—“evidentiary policies.”

To fill this gap, this Article discusses three related evidentiary policies. The first is accuracy, which courts and scholars consider a …

Can Speech Act Theory Save Notice Pleading?, Susan E. Provenzano

Indiana Law Journal

Countless scholars have debated—and lower courts have attempted to apply—the plausibility pleading regime that the Supreme Court introduced in Twombly and Iqbal. Iqbal took Twombly’s requirement that a complaint plead plausibly and turned it into a two-step test. Under that test, the life or death of a lawsuit rests on the distinction between “well-pleaded” and “conclusory” allegations. Only the former are assumed true on a motion to dismiss. Seven decades of pleading precedent had taken a sensible, if unstable, approach to the truth assumption, making a single cut between factual contentions (assumed true) and legal conclusions (ignored). But Iqbal redrew …

The District Of South Carolina's Approach To Post-Removal Damage Stipulations: The Need For One Less "Controversy" In The Amount-In-Controversy Analysis, Samuel C. Williams

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antitrust Harm And Causation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

How should plaintiffs show harm from antitrust violations? The inquiry naturally breaks into two issues: first, what is the nature of the harm? and second, what does proof of causation require? The best criterion for assessing harm is likely or reasonably anticipated output effects. Antitrust’s goal should be output as high as is consistent with sustainable competition.

The standard for proof of causation then depends on two things: the identity of the enforcer and the remedy that the plaintiff is seeking. It does not necessarily depend on which antitrust statute the plaintiff is seeking to enforce. For public agencies, enforcement …

Evidence, W. Randall Bassett, Val Leppert, Lauren Newman

Mercer Law Review

In its 2020 term, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued several important and precedential opinions on a number of evidentiary topics. For example, in four published opinions, the court considered whether certain evidence was “testimonial” to determine whether its admission would implicate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The court also addressed whether a defendant on federal supervised release faces a “classic penalty situation,” thereby deeming any confession compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment, when a probation officer asks him to answer questions that would reveal he had committed new crimes.

The Eleventh Circuit additionally …

“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias

Journal of Law and Policy

 Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test.  With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.

Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley

All Faculty Scholarship

Rather than expressing a view on the issues raised and ably briefed by the parties, amicus submits this brief to inform the Court of the scholarly research she has conducted regarding Section 1782 proceedings since this Court’s seminal decision in Intel. As Section 1782 applications have proliferated, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Intel factors as this Court had envisioned. Especially in the context of Section 1782 applications submitted by parties to an international proceeding (as opposed to those made by the international tribunal itself), lower courts have frequently found themselves unable to analyze and apply the …

Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Chimerism And Mosaicism: The Fallibility Of Dna Evidence, Robert Ellis-Liang

Child and Family Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Right Against Self-Incrimination Under Indian Constitution & The Admissibility Of Custodial Statements Under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Khagesh Gautam

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

This work argues that the constitutional validity of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is highly suspect on the ground that it violates the right against self-incrimination protected by article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Section 27 codifies the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent recovery, an old British rule of admission according to which self-incriminatory custodial statements and/or confessions obtained by the police or the investigation agency are admissible into evidence on the ground that contents of such statement have been confirmed by recovery of incriminating physical evidence. Chapter I locates the Indian criminal justice system within the …

Enock Kahale & 3 Others V The People [2021] Zmca 26, John Hatchard

SAIPAR Case Review

In both criminal and civil cases, the general rule is that a witness may only testify as to matters of fact of which they have personal knowledge. Thus, a witness may not draw inferences from the facts, speculate about the causes of the facts or make value judgments about those facts. The case of Kahale is unusual in that the expert who was required to give evidence, i.e., the ballistics expert, did not do so whilst PW7, a non-expert, was permitted to give evidence that required an expert in the relevant field. There was therefore a complete absence of expert …

A Comparative Examination Of Police Interrogation Of Criminal Suspects In Australia, Canada, England And Wales, New Zealand, And The United States, Carol A. Brook, Bruno Fiannaca, David Harvey, Paul Marcus, Renee Pomerance, Paul Roberts

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The interrogation process is central to the investigation and resolution of criminal matters throughout the world. It is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of comparative criminal procedure to study and appreciate the different approaches to the interrogation process in different nations. This Article developed through a series of conversations between six international criminal justice professionals— practicing attorneys, scholars, and judges—regarding the interrogation practices and rules in their respective countries. Providing a comparative look at this important area, this Article examines the applicable practices and procedures in the common law nations of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the …

Level The Playing Field: Advocating For The Removal Of Major League Baseball’S Prohibition On The Admissibility Of Statcast-Generated Sabermetrics As Evidence In Salary Arbitration Hearings, Christian Podest

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper argues that Major League Baseball should amend its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to remove the outright ban on certain types of statistical evidence to help prove a player’s value. First, the paper briefly describes the history of the compensation system in the MLB and its evolution. Then, it details how final offer arbitration became the default mechanism for resolving compensation disputes between teams and players. The paper subsequently focuses on the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s carve-out of statistical evidence and notes the similarities and differences between Major League Baseball’s evidentiary standards governing salary arbitration hearings and the Federal Rules …