Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Searches and seizures (9)
- Evidence (7)
- Ninth Circuit Survey (4)
- Discovery (2)
- Domestic violence (2)
-
- Hearsay evidence (2)
- Misconduct of Prosecuting Attorney (2)
- Right of privacy (2)
- Business and Technology Forum (1)
- California Evidence Code of 1967 (1)
- California evidence code of 1967 (1)
- Child pornography (1)
- Child sexual abuse (1)
- Columbia Packing Company (1)
- Computer access control (1)
- Confidential communications (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Criminal confessions (1)
- Criminal conspiracy (1)
- Criminal intent (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- DNA evidence (1)
- Daubert (1)
- Domestic abuse (1)
- Drone (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Evidence law (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Expert witness testimony (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 31
Full-Text Articles in Law
Know Every Document And Piece Of Evidence In Your File, Rachel Brockl
Know Every Document And Piece Of Evidence In Your File, Rachel Brockl
Publications
Knowing every document and piece of evidence in your case file is imperative to competent preparation of your case. While this may sound obvious, many attorneys fail to follow this advisement to their own peril. The reasons for knowing your case file in and out are threefold: (1) you want to be the case master, (2) you do not want to be caught off-guard, and (3) your reputation is on the line.
Dna Analysis And The Confrontation Clause: “Special Needs” Category For Dna Testimonial Evidence, Colleen Clark
Dna Analysis And The Confrontation Clause: “Special Needs” Category For Dna Testimonial Evidence, Colleen Clark
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment examines three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with forensic evidence and how its use is affected by the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause provides a defendant with the right to confront adverse witnesses. Notably, in Williams v. Illinois, Justice Breyer pointed out that the Court has explicitly not addressed the “outer limits of the “testimonial statements” rule set forth in Crawford v. Washington.” Specifically, Justice Breyer asked how “the Confrontation Clause [applies] to the panoply of crime laboratory reports and underlying technical statements written by (or otherwise made by) laboratory technicians?” This question, while left …
The Sky Is The Limit: Regulating The Next Generation Of Privacy Invasion, Laura Patty
The Sky Is The Limit: Regulating The Next Generation Of Privacy Invasion, Laura Patty
GGU Law Review Blog
No abstract provided.
Why Cops Lie, Peter Keane
Why Cops Lie, Peter Keane
Publications
Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.
Ninth Circuit Strikes Out On Hearsay, Peter Keane
Ninth Circuit Strikes Out On Hearsay, Peter Keane
Publications
The recent Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion, United States v. Barry Bonds , is a murky distortion of an important Federal Rule of Evidence. Quite apart from any celebrity status about a decision regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the former Giants' slugger, the ruling significantly affects the admissibility of evidence in the federal courts in an unfortunate and erroneous way.
Evidence, Joseph B. Harvey
Evidence, Joseph B. Harvey
Cal Law Trends and Developments
The principal developments and trends to be noted in the law of evidence appeared this year in appellate Court decisions. The legislative changes were few. Only one legislative change seems likely to be of any significance and will be felt primarily by drivers accused of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor. For lawyers, the notable developments appear in the case law; it is likely that the courts will remain the primary arena for the development of the law of evidence for some time to come.
Evidence, Joseph B. Harvey
Evidence, Joseph B. Harvey
Cal Law Trends and Developments
On January 1, 1967, the California Evidence Code began to govern trials held in California courts. Because of the delays necessarily incident to litigation, the appellate courts were not called upon to review trials held under the new rules in significant numbers until 1968. With the 1968 decisions, however, the impact of the Code upon California practice has become fairly apparent. At the same time, the courts have continued to develop rules of evidence designed to implement the various procedural guarantees found in the Constitution of the United States, and some of these court-developed rules have had significant effect, particularly …
Evidence, Ronan E. Degnan
Evidence, Ronan E. Degnan
Cal Law Trends and Developments
This survey is concerned with case law as well as with statutes, but the cases selected will be of primary interest because they shed some light on how California courts are apt to interpret the statutes. Somewhat paradoxically, this requires some preference for dictum over holding. The clear holdings from all but the very end of the calendar year were applications of the old law, because the appellate courts were still disposing of the cases that had gone to trial before January 1, 1967. But the appellate judges were alert to the new Code, and frequently they would consider how …
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the Young court’s opinion and the potential consequences of the majority’s cursory rejection of the government’s inevitable discovery argument. This Note also reconciles the differing applications of the inevitable discovery doctrine by the Young majority and dissent and highlights the speculative nature of employing the inevitable discovery doctrine based on the facts of Young. Part I of this Note presents the background of the case and the historical development of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, focusing on the inevitable discovery doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. Part II outlines the Young decision and analyzes …
United States V. Payton: Redefining The Reasonableness Standard For Computer Searches And Seizures, Susan A. Rados
United States V. Payton: Redefining The Reasonableness Standard For Computer Searches And Seizures, Susan A. Rados
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines United States v. Payton and the issue of when it is reasonable to search a computer if it is not expressly authorized on the search warrant. Part I discusses the background facts of Payton and the Fourth Amendment. Part II analyzes why the Ninth Circuit ultimately decided Payton correctly but focused on the wrong underlying reason in its holding. The reasonableness standard for computer searches should be whether the computer “could” contain the evidence, rather than the stricter standard of “would” contain the evidence announced in Payton. However, because computers are different from traditional containers, they should …
Possession Of Reading Material And Intent To Commit A Crime In United States V. Curtin, Anna L. Benvenue
Possession Of Reading Material And Intent To Commit A Crime In United States V. Curtin, Anna L. Benvenue
Golden Gate University Law Review
The majority opinion in United States v. Curtin held that simple possession of reading material can be evidence of a defendant's criminal intent, even without proof that the accused ever read the materials. Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott, who wrote the majority decision, overruled prior Ninth Circuit precedent that would have made such evidence inadmissible as irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. However, the majority also found the district court judge's failure to properly analyze the evidence under Rule 403 warranted reversal and remand. As a result, the remaining seven judges on the panel filed or joined concurrences, rather …
To Download Or Not To Download: Is Mere Membership Enough To Justify A Search Of A Home Computer For Child Pornography Under United States V. Gourde?, Erin Frazor
Golden Gate University Law Review
In the nine to two decision by the en banc Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Gourde, the court ruled that probable cause existed to search the defendant's home computer based in part on his two-month subscription to a website that offered child pornography. The majority opinion sought to conform to Supreme Court precedent in its probable cause analysis, while the dissenting opinions expressed great concern about the door being opened to this type of governmental invasion of privacy. Gourde has sparked reactions by commentators regarding the implications of the decision, and has influenced the analysis of subsequent child …
Technology - Konop V. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Patricia Defonte
Technology - Konop V. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Patricia Defonte
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the unauthorized access of the content of a secure website is a violation of the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. This is the first case to determine whether unauthorized accessing of a secure private website is a violation of the Wiretap Act. This decision is contrary to an earlier decision by the Fifth Circuit in United. States v. Turk, which held that the Wiretap Act required contemporaneous transmission and acquisition of the communication. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the scope …
A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy
A Hearsay Exception For Physical Abuse, Karleen F. Murphy
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment will trace the history of the hearsay rule under both common law and California law. It examines the early use of the common law state of mind hearsay exception regarding statements of fear and physical abuse. It will also discuss the enactment of the California Evidence Code (hereinafter "Code") and the later codification of the state of mind hearsay exception. In addition, it will examine People v. Ruiz, a case which applied the Code's state of mind hearsay exception to prohibit statements regarding the victims' fear of the defendant and the physical abuse which the defendant inflicted on …
Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews
Making The Crucial Connection: A Proposed Threat Hearsay Exception, Donna Meredith Matthews
Golden Gate University Law Review
This article discusses how courts admit and exclude threat hearsay in the domestic homicide context and suggests an approach for admission of such evidence. After analyzing the current evidentiary status of the victim's statements regarding threats in homicide cases in which an apparently abusive spouse/partner is accused, I argue for adoption of a new hearsay exception that permits systematic admission of victims' statements concerning threats and violence by the accused. The victim can no longer speak for herself because she has been killed, often because the law is apparently helpless to intervene on her behalf, even when asked. Consequently, the …
California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso
California's Newsgatherer's Shield: Inconsistent Interpretation Means Inadequate Protection, Nora Linda Rousso
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment will initially discuss the history of the shield law in California and examine how it has been defined by the courts in the leading cases. It will also discuss New York Times, Delaney and Hallissy in terms of the courts' application of the shield law to those cases. The analyses of New York Times and Hallissy will be contrasted with that of Delaney. This Comment will attempt to show how the New York Times/Hallissy analysis could have been applied to the facts of Delaney and still have yielded the same result. Recommendations will be made with respect to …
Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka
Raising The Standard For Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle In Proving Claims Of Child Sexual Abuse In Dependency Hearings, Matthew J. Dulka
Golden Gate University Law Review
This comment will examine the Amber B. court's decision to characterize evidence provided by the mental health professionals as scientific evidence and not as expert opinion. Secondly, this comment will explore the desirability of imposing the scientific evidence standard, usually applied in criminal cases, to dependency hearings. Finally, this comment will discuss the implications of the Amber B. decision in light of the already present evidentiary difficulties of proving child sexual abuse claims and the social policy of protecting the welfare of the abused child.
Repeating, Yet Evading Review: Admitting Reliable Expert Testimony In Criminal Cases Still Depends Upon Who Is Asking, Wes R. Porter
Repeating, Yet Evading Review: Admitting Reliable Expert Testimony In Criminal Cases Still Depends Upon Who Is Asking, Wes R. Porter
Publications
A trial court must find that the proponent of expert witness testimony has set forth adequate evidence that the testimony is based upon reliable methods and will be helpful to the trier of fact. Much has been written regarding the reliability prong since the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., yet a severe prejudice to the criminally accused persists today in some trial courts’ analyses of the often overlooked helpfulness prong. Despite the straight-forward articulation of helpfulness, described as “fit” or mere relevance, some trial courts apply the helpfulness prong differently depending upon whether the expert testimony …
Saving Face: The Benefits Of Not Saying I'M Sorry, Brent T. White
Saving Face: The Benefits Of Not Saying I'M Sorry, Brent T. White
Publications
No abstract provided.
Probable Cause To Arrest And Admissibility Of Evidence, Bonnie Lee Martin
Probable Cause To Arrest And Admissibility Of Evidence, Bonnie Lee Martin
California Agencies
Following the decision in People v. Cahan, in April of 1955, California adopted as a judicially declared rule of evidence, that illegally obtained evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. There are only a few general statutes governing the laws of arrest which aid the court and police officers in determining whether a given arrest is lawful and a search and seizure of evidence proper. 'l'hus it remained for judicial decisions to define and answer the problems which have arisen in this area. Since our digest systems are never quite current and since to my knowledge, these cases …
People V. Berve, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Berve, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Threats and coercion by others than police rendered a confession later obtained by the police inadmissible because the right to a fair trial extended beyond police activity.
People V. Wilburn, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Wilburn, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although defendant engaged in a shoot-out with a retired police officer who walked in on a robbery, the evidence pointed to the conclusion that a bullet fired from defendant's gun killed a decedent. Thus, he was guilty of first-degree murder.
People V. Beard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Beard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A motion for a new criminal trial was denied because defendant did not show that the decision to rely on his own testimony was other than his own or that the evidence presented was evidence that he could not have discovered and produced at the trial.
People V. Farrara [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Farrara [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although the record contained no justification for the authorities' warrantless arrest of defendants and warrantless search of their home, the court would not presume that the authorities acted illegally; defendants were not entitled to a new trial.
People V. Citrino [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Citrino [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's possession of tools that had been taken in a burglary could be inferred from the fact that the tools had been abandoned, and defendant's recently driven car was found nearby.
Willson V. Superior Court Of San Diego County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Willson V. Superior Court Of San Diego County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although defendant's conduct observed by an officer did not of itself constitute reasonable cause to believe she was committing a felony, it was sufficient to justify the officer's reliance on information regarding defendant's bookmaking.
People V. Martin [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Martin [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Officers' search of a car without a warrant was justified by presence of two men on a lover's lane at night and the suspects' sudden flight upon the approach of the officers. The officers could search the car for weapons before questioning the men.
People V. Blodgett [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Blodgett [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although a prosecutor had improperly focused the jury on defendant's alleged prior heroin use, defendant's marijuana possession conviction was not reversed when the prosecutorial misconduct did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
People V. Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Evidence of another crime, part of the same criminal act for which defendant was on trial, was admissible at defendant's trial.
People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where there was prima facie proof of the existence of a conspiracy, testimony concerning a co-conspirator's statements in furtherance of the conspiracy, though made in the absence of defendant, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.