Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (12)
- Testimony (3)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Daubert (2)
- Expert witness (2)
-
- Intent (2)
- Mental health (2)
- Privilege (2)
- Psychology (2)
- AB 193 (1)
- Alternative causation testimony; expert witness; medical malpractice (1)
- Attitudinal (1)
- Attorney work product doctrine (1)
- Barrett (1)
- Blinders (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: EVIDENCE (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: EXPERT WITNESS REQUIREMENTS (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE (1)
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1)
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE; GRAND JURY; PROSECUTION DUTIES; pretrial habeas (1)
- Chemist (1)
- Child Custody (1)
- Child psychology (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Classroom (1)
- Cognitive (1)
- Common (1)
- Common-law (1)
- Competency (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 73
Full-Text Articles in Law
Transparency In Forensic Exams, Dorothy Sims, Chris Dove, Richard Frederick
Transparency In Forensic Exams, Dorothy Sims, Chris Dove, Richard Frederick
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Alternative Evidence Rules For Arbitration, Henry Zhuhao Wang
Alternative Evidence Rules For Arbitration, Henry Zhuhao Wang
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Preventing A (Replication) Crisis In The Courtroom, Kaitlin Mccormick-Huhn
Preventing A (Replication) Crisis In The Courtroom, Kaitlin Mccormick-Huhn
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Brown (Larry) V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 23, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Brown (Larry) V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 23, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence without the aid of expert testimony. The Court determined it was proper here. The Court also considered whether the district court violated the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause by allowing a witness to testify via a two-way video and limiting cross-examination to protect proprietary trade secrets. The Court determined that the district court failed to make express findings under Lipitz. The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting witness testimony. No reversal was granted, and the court …
The “Fool’S Gold” Standard Of Confession Evidence: How Intersecting, Disadvantaged Identities Heighten The Risk Of False Confession, Nicole Weis
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Use Of Expert Witnesses In Gambling Cases, Robert M. Jarvis
The Use Of Expert Witnesses In Gambling Cases, Robert M. Jarvis
UNLV Gaming Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Continuous Burdens Of Proof, Mark Spottswood
Convenience Or Confidentiality: Nevada’S Digital Data Laws In The Age Of Always-Listening Devices, E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari
Convenience Or Confidentiality: Nevada’S Digital Data Laws In The Age Of Always-Listening Devices, E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: The Role Of Clergy In Perpetuating And Preventing Domestic Violence, Kami Orton
The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: The Role Of Clergy In Perpetuating And Preventing Domestic Violence, Kami Orton
Nevada Law Journal Forum
Domestic violence occurs at alarming rates in all socioeconomic levels, races, locations, sexual orientations, and professions. Domestic violence occurs at similar frequencies among religious and non-religious individuals. Clergy play an important role in religious communities. The clergy-penitent privilege was created to protect the relationship between clergy and communicant and prevents clergy from testifying about spiritual communications. However, the privilege is currently an absolute privilege which is unnecessary and hurts victims and survivors of domestic violence. Additionally, the statutorily written privilege is not aligned with the application and practice of the privilege. Practice indicates clergy tend to desire to testify and …
Justice In A Brave New World?, Jean R. Sternlight
Justice In A Brave New World?, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
As science fiction has become reality, we should consider the implications of our new technologies for our system of justice. In addition to DNA, we are now regularly using cameras, geo-tracking, facial recognition software, brain scans, computers, and much more to discern and record our physical and mental surroundings. Existing technology and more we cannot yet imagine will increasingly take the place of often unreliable evidence, such as that provided by eyewitnesses. Yet, we have given far too little thought as to how these advances should impact our civil and criminal dispute resolution systems.
Historically, many justice systems have emphasized …
Valentine V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 19, 2019), Riley Coggins
Valentine V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 19, 2019), Riley Coggins
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the defendant makes specific allegations that, if true, would be sufficient to constitute a prima facie violation of the state’s fair-cross-section requirement. The Court also briefly discussed appellant’s claims of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct regarding DNA evidence. The Court found that neither claim warranted a new trial.
Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou
Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice.
Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon
Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For purposes of NRS 172.135(2), evidence that has been suppressed in justice court proceedings on a felony complaint is not “legal evidence,” and therefore, may not be presented to a grand jury. The Court will grant an exception to this rule if the suppression was reversed before the grand jury proceedings.
Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord
Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court concluded that (1) the empanelment of an anonymous jury does not, without actual prejudice, infringe on a defendant’s constitutional rights and the district court satisfied the abuse-of-discretion standard adopted; (2) the district court need not instruct a jury that is responsible for imposing a sentence in a first-degree murder case under NRS 175.552 about the effects of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Menendez-Cordero’s threats as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.
Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont
Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Moreover, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it improperly applied the Hallmark factors and disqualified Dr. Johnson from testifying. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendant a new trial.
Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick
Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination about a specific out-of-court statement for it to be excluded from the definition of hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement or identification. Further, the Court held that the errors of admission made by the district court were harmless.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Montana V. Tipton, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton, Paul G. Cassell
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Montana V. Tipton, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton, Paul G. Cassell
Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert
Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in allowing illegally recorded conversations to be used by a court appointed child psychologist to evaluate a child’s welfare in a custody case.
The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George
The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto
Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district …
Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich
Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, and post-judgment orders awarding costs and denying a new trial in a personal injury action. While the Court addressed numerous issues, the following three questions comprised the bulk of the consolidated appeals: (1) whether an attorney may ask prospective jurors questions concerning a specific verdict amount to determine potential bias or prejudice; (2) whether repeatedly asking questions about that specific amount results in jury indoctrination warranting a mistrial; and (3) when a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing jurors for cause under Jitnan …
State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.
Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua
Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This court affirmed an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, of voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm holding:
(1) Brady violations do not occur when the evidence in question is not favorable to the defendant;
(2) Prosecutors have a strict duty to disclose under their own open-file policy until sentencing proceedings; and,
(3) Media outlets require a written by the district court to electronically cover proceedings unless nonconstitutional or harmless error results in such coverage.
Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon
Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon
Scholarly Works
Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient—a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional’s primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, …
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.
Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to file an information by affidavit more than 15 days after the preliminary examination concluded, when the justice court committed an “egregious error,” and “the defendant was discharged but not prejudiced by the delay.” Further, the Court defines “egregious error” as when “a charge was erroneously dismissed or a defendant was erroneously discharged based on a magistrate’s error.” Due to the justice court’s egregious errors in the preliminary examination that resulted in appellant’s discharge, the Court found that the district court was …
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing