Law Commons^™

The Automated Fourth Amendment, Maneka Sinha

Faculty Scholarship

Courts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible. Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests …

Environmental Evidence, Seema Kakade

Faculty Scholarship

The voices of impacted people are some of the most important when trying to make improvements to social justice in a variety of contexts, including, criminal policing, housing, and health care. After all, the people with on the ground experience know what is likely to truly effectuate change in their community, and what is not. Yet, such lived experience is also often significantly lacking and undermined in law and policy. People with lived experience tend to be seen as both community experts with valuable knowledge, as well as non-experts with little valuable knowledge. This Article explores the lived experience with …

Junk Science At Sentencing, Maneka Sinha

Faculty Scholarship

Junk science used in criminal trials has contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions. But the problem is much worse than that. Junk science does not only harm criminal defendants who go to trial, but also the overwhelming majority of defendants—over ninety-five percent—who plead guilty, skip trial, and proceed straight to sentencing.

Scientific, technical, and other specialized evidence (“STS evidence”) is used regularly, and with increasing frequency, at sentencing. Despite this, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents—which help filter unreliable STS evidence at trials—do not apply at the critical sentencing stage. In fact, at sentencing, no meaningful admissibility …

Maryland Makes New Evidence Postconviction Review Provisions Available To Defendants With Plea Deals, Felicia Langel

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Utah V. Strieff: The Gratuitous Expansion Of The Attenuation Doctrine, Courtney Watkins

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, Mark Andrew Matthews V. State Of Maryland, No. 327, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Jesse M. Lachman

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, James Goss V. State Of Maryland, No. 669, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Lisa M. Johnson

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Neuro Lie Detection And Mental Privacy, Madison Kilbride, Jason Iuliano

Maryland Law Review

New technologies inevitably raise novel legal questions. This is particularly true of technologies, such as neuro lie detection, that offer new ways to investigate crime. Recently, a number of scholars have asked whether neuro lie detection testing is constitutional. So far, the debate has focused on the Fifth Amendment—specifically whether evidence gathered through neuro lie detection is constitutionally admissible because it is “physical” in nature or inadmissible because it is “testimonial” in nature. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, this Fifth Amendment debate is intractable. However, the more fundamental question of whether the government can compel individuals to undergo a neuro …

Burris V. State: Suggestions For The Continued Development Of The Rule For Admitting The Testimony Of Gang Experts, Michael Jacko

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Imaging Brains, Changing Minds: How Pain Neuroimaging Can Inform The Law, Amanda C. Pustilnik

Faculty Scholarship

What would the law do differently if it could see into the black box of the mind? One of the most valuable things it might do is reform the ways it deals with pain. Pain is ubiquitous in law, from tort to torture, from ERISA to expert evidence. Yet legal doctrines grapple with pain poorly, embodying concepts that are generations out of date and that cast suspicion on pain sufferers as having a problem that is “all in their heads.”

Now, brain-imaging technologies are allowing scientists to see the brain in pain—and to reconceive of many types of pain as …

Painful Disparities, Painful Realities, Amanda C. Pustilnik

Faculty Scholarship

Legal doctrines and decisional norms treat chronic claims pain differently than other kinds of disability or damages claims because of bias and confusion about whether chronic pain is real. This is law’s painful disparity. Now, breakthrough neuroimaging can make pain visible, shedding light on these mysterious ills. Neuroimaging shows these conditions are, as sufferers have known all along, painfully real. This Article is about where law ought to change because of innovations in structural and functional imaging of the brain in pain. It describes cutting-edge scientific developments and the impact they should make on evidence law and disability law, and, …

Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellant, James Townsend V. Midland Funding, Llc, Stuart Robert Cohen, Peter A. Holland

Court Briefs

The Consumer Protection Clinic of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, filed a Motion to Participate and an Amicus Brief in the case of Townsend v. Midland Funding, LLC. The case presents the question of whether documents created by third party predecessors in interest—usually a bank—may be admitted into evidence when a debt buyer plaintiff does not demonstrate personal knowledge regarding any of the foundational elements which would be required to admit the documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Amici urge the Court to overturn the lower court, and hold that a …

More Than A "Quick Glimpse Of The Life": The Relationship Between Victim Impact Evidence And Death Sentencing, Jerome E. Deise, Raymond Paternoster

Faculty Scholarship

In striking down the use of victim impact evidence (VIE) during the penalty phase of a capital trial, the Supreme Court in Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers argued that such testimony would appeal to the emotions of jurors with the consequence that death sentences would not be based upon a reasoned consideration of the blameworthiness of the offender. After a change in personnel, the Court overturned both decisions in Payne v. Tennessee, decided just two years after Gathers. The majority in Payne were decidedly less concerned with the emotional appeal of VIE, arguing that it would only …

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Griffin V. State: Setting The Bar Too High For Authenticating Social Media Evidence, Brendan W. Hogan

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Davis V. United States: Good Faith, Retroactivity, And The Loss Of Principle, David Mcaloon

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Garner V. State: Maryland’S Implied Retreat From Implied Assertions, Lindsey N. Lanzendorfer

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clearly Erroneous: The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland’S Misguided Shift To A Higher Standard For Post-Conviction Dna Relief, Christine E. White

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Disparate Treatment Of Neuroscience Expert Testimony In Criminal Litigation, Jamie Wagenheim

The Appendix

No abstract provided.

Schultz V. Bank Of America: A Fly In The Financial Buttermilk - Clarifying The Common Knowledge Exception To Improve Litigation Efficiency And Bank Safety, Lauren M. Elfner

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Keeping It Real: Reforming The “Untried Conviction” Impeachment Rule, Montré D. Carodine

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

District Attorney’S Office For The Third Judicial District V. Osborne: Leaving Prisoners’ Access To Dna Evidence In Limbo, Alexandra Millard

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let My Love Open The Door: The Case For Extending Marital Privileges To Unmarried Cohabitants, Julia Cardozo

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Dickey V. State: Jury Instruction On Drug Use And Its Concomitant Effect On Eyewitness Credibility, Rachel M. Witriol

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Goldberg V. Boone: Getting Away With “Murder”— An Attempt To Exploit The Arbitrary Limits On Cross-Examination Questioning, Brigham J. Lundberg

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Even Better Than The Real Thing: How Courts Have Been Anything But Liberal In Finding Genuine Questions Raised As To The Authenticity Of Originals Under Rule 1003, Colin Miller

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Probability, Policy And The Problem Of Reference Class, Robert J. Rhee

Faculty Scholarship

This short paper focuses on the problem of reference class in evidentiary assessment as it relates to probability and weight of evidence. The reluctance to inject mathematical formalism into the factfinding function is justified. Objective probability requires a reference class from which a proportion is derived. Probability assessments change with the reference class. If a proposition is subject to proportional comparison against two or more different references, their selection is often an inductive process. The advantage of objectivity and methodological rigor is illusory. A legal dispute is the search for a plausible understanding of the truth, and an overtly mathematized …

A Unilateral Hope: Reliance On The Clemency Process As A Trigger For A Right Of Access To State-Held Dna Evidence, Ryan Dietrich

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.