Law Commons^™

Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …

Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver

Russell L. Weaver

This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …

Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson

Maine Law Review

Prosecutorial forensic misconduct has become front page news in Maine. Since April of 1993, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has reversed convictions in three highly publicized cases based on remarks made by the prosecutor. In State v. Steen, the prosecutor asked the defendant to give his opinion concerning the veracity of other witnesses and suggested in closing argument that the favorable testimony given by the defense's expert witness resulted from the fee he had received. The Law Court vacated the gross sexual assault conviction, finding that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument “clearly suggested” to …

Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford

Maine Law Review

In recent years, several decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court have addressed the comments of prosecutors in final argument before criminal juries. Three of those decisions in particular have caused concern among prosecutors and have stirred discussion in the Maine legal community. In vacating convictions in State v. Steen, State v. Casella, and State v. Tripp, the Law Court focused on the language used by the prosecutors during closing argument and concluded that those prosecutors impermissibly expressed personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendants, or witnesses called by the defendants. This Article examines …

David Brown Versus Louisiana, Charles Ogletree, Ronald Sullivan

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy

Tiffany R Murphy

A defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are violated when a state agency fails to disclose crucial exculpatory or impeachment evidence — so-called Brady violations. When this happens, the defendant should be provided the means not only to locate this evidence, but also to fully develop it in state post-conviction processes. When the state system prohibits both the means and legal mechanism to develop Brady claims, the defendant should be immune to any procedural penalties in either state or federal court. In other words, the defendant should not be required to return to state court to exhaust such a claim. …

Futility Of Exhaustion: Why Brady Claims Should Trump Federal Exhaustion Requirements, Tiffany R. Murphy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are violated when a state agency fails to disclose crucial exculpatory or impeachment evidence — so-called Brady violations. When this happens, the defendant should be provided the means not only to locate this evidence, but also to fully develop it in state post-conviction processes. When the state system prohibits both the means and legal mechanism to develop Brady claims, the defendant should be immune to any procedural penalties in either state or federal court. In other words, the defendant should not be required to return to state court to exhaust such a claim. …

Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …

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

The Chorus Of Liars: Opsahl V. State Of Minnesota, David T. Schultz

William Mitchell Law Review

A recanting witness is a liar. Either he lied at trial or he is lying now. When the recanting witness’s new story is joined by others, so that his solo is now a chorus, the judicial system must find the delicate balance between fairness to society and protection of the individual defendant’s rights. When the case is old and the recanting witnesses many, the difficulty of finding that balance is even greater. Such were the circumstances facing the Minnesota Supreme Court when, in 2004, it heard the case of Darby Opsahl, a man convicted in 1992 of a murder that …

Cowboy Prosecutors And Subpoenas For Incriminating Evidence: The Consequences And Correction Of Excess, Robert P. Mosteller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Burger Court And Prosecutorial Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Professor Gershman critically examines a series of recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with prosecutorial misconduct. In each case, the Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction.

There are a broad range of issues involved; from suppression of evidence to trial misconduct. As a former prosecutor in New York City, the author is forced to conclude that, "Prosecutorial misconduct occurs because it works and because sanctions for misbehavior are virtually nonexistent."