Law Commons^™

The Impact Of Information Overload On The Capital Jury's Ability To Assess Aggravating And Mitigating Factors, Katie Morgan, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Since 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court has required that death penalty regimes meet two requirements. First, in order to minimize arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty, states must reserve capital punishment to a narrow class of offenders, those most deserving of death. States have done so by requiring that the prosecution prove at least one aggravating factor, i.e., some circumstance that separates the capital defendant on trial from those ineligible to be executed. Second, states must allow for individualization in sentencing by permitting the defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in order to persuade the jury that he is …

Testimonial Deficiencies And Evidentiary Uncertainties In International Criminal Trials, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

In this article, the author describes the flaws inherent in the process of international criminal tribunals which seek to punish the inhumane actions of dictators. The author first describes how international criminal trials confront severe impediments to accurate factfinding. It continues on to discuss the failure of witnesses in these tribunals to accurately convey the information needed to make a fully- informed decision. This problem is compounded by the fact that what clear information is provided during witness testimony often is inconsistent with the information that the witness previously provided in a pre-trial statement. The author also explores the causes …

Maintaining The Presumption Of Innocence In Date Rape Trials Through The Use Of Language Orders: State V. Safi And The Banning Of The Word "Rape", Jason Wool

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This note evaluates the use of language orders in date rape trials in which the defense is consent through a case study of State v. Safi, in which Tory Bowen claims that Pamir Safi date raped her. In that case, the trial judge granted a motion by the defense to prevent the prosecution and any of their witnesses from using words such as "rape" and "sexual assault." Using State v. Safi as a starting point, the author examines the use of such trial orders from the perspective of both defendants and victims. The author concludes that a modified version of …

The Significance (If Any) For The Federal Criminal Justice System Of Advances In Lie Detector Technology, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Against a backdrop of accelerating developments in the science of lie detection certain to reopen the debate on the reliability and therefore admissibility of lie detector evidence in the federal courts, this Article examines whether the prohibition on hearsay evidence (or other evidentiary objections) will preclude admissibility of even scientifically reliable lie detector evidence. The Article concludes that the hearsay prohibition, which has been largely ignored by courts and commentators, is the primary obstacle to the future admission of scientifically valid lie detector evidence. The Article also suggests a potential solution to the hearsay problem that may allow admission of …

The Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

William & Mary Law Review

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …

Improving The Reliability Of Criminal Trials Through Legal Rules That Encourage Defendants To Testify, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Reflecting a traditional bias against defendants' trial testimony, the modern American criminal justice system, which now recognizes a constitutional right to testify at trial, unabashedly encourages defendants to waive that right and remain silent. As a result, a large percentage of criminal defendants decline to testify, forcing juries to decide the question of the defendant's guilt without ever hearing from the person most knowledgeable on the subject.

This Article contends that the inflated percentage of silent defendants in the American criminal trial system is a needless, self-inflected wound, neither required by the Constitution nor beneficial to the search for truth. …

Killing Roger Coleman: Habeas, Finality, And The Innocence Gap, Todd E. Pettys

William & Mary Law Review

For the past fifteen years, the execution of Roger Coleman has served as perhaps the most infamous illustration of the U.S. Supreme Court's determination to help the states achieve finality in their criminal cases. Convicted of rape and murder in 1982, Coleman steadfastly maintained his innocence and drew many supporters to his cause. In its 1991 ruling in Coleman v. Thompson, however, the Court refused to consider the constitutional claims raised in Coleman's habeas petition. The Court ruled that Coleman had forfeited his right to seek habeas relief when, in prior state proceedings, his attorneys mistakenly filed their notice of …

Here Is The Church, Now Who Owns The Steeple? A Revised Approach To Church Property Disputes, Adam E. Lyons

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article reviews two approaches to the implementation of neutral principles of law--the constitutionally permissible method of resolving property disputes between bodies in a religious hierarchy. Though both approaches may be valid, the formal title approach, as implemented by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Presbytery of Beaver- Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, leads to problems in application that have been rectified by that court's more recent decision in In re Church of St. James the Less. It is the contention of this Article that future courts and practitioners facing church property disputes can draw guidance from the St. James decision …

Is Silence Sacred? The Vulnerability Of Griffin V. California In A Terrorist World, Lissa Griffin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"So I Says To "The Guy,' I Says...": The Constitutionality Of Neutral Pronoun Redaction In Multidefendant Criminal Trials, Bryan M. Shay

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

It's Not Just About Miranda: Determining The Voluntariness Of Confessions In Criminal Prosecutions, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

What Do Snowmobiles, Mercury Emissions, Greenhouse Gases, And Runoff Have In Common?: The Controversy Over "Junk Science", Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Confrontation, Equity, And The Misnamed Exception For "Forfeiture" By Wrongdoing, James F. Flanagan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Shock To The System: Analyzing The Conflict Among Courts Over Whether And When Excited Utterances May Follow Subsequent Startling Occurrences In Rape And Sexual Assault Cases, Colin Miller

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Blow To Domestic Violence Victims: Applying The "Testimonial Statements" Test In Crawford V. Washington, Melissa Moody

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Aedpa Deference And The Undeveloped State Factual Record: Monroe V. Angelone And New Evidence, Rachel E. Wheeler

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Best Scientific Evidence Available: The Whaling Moratorium And Divergent Interpretations Of Science, A. W. Harris

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Meaning, Intention, And The Hearsay Rule, Paul F. Kirgis

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compelled Dna Testing In Rape Cases: Illustrating The Necessity Of An Exception To The Self-Incrimination Clause, Stephanie A. Parks

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Admitting Expert Testimony On Battered Woman Syndrome In Virginia Courts: How Peeples Changed Virginia Self-Defense Law, Marybeth H. Lenkevich

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Whether The Federal Rules Of Evidence Should Be Conceived As A Perpetual Index Code: Blindness Is Worse Than Myopia, Edward J. Imwinkelried

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Myopia: The Failure To See The Federal Rules Of Evidence As A Codification Of The Common Law, Glen Weissenberger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Elusive Identity Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Glen Weissenberger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conflicts Of Interest In Scientific Expert Testimony, Mark R. Patterson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Psychiatric Evidence In Criminal Trials: To Junk Or Not To Junk?, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Old Chief, Crowder, And Trials By Stipulation, David Robinson Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Robinson argues that the meaning of "unfair prejudice" and the scope of trial judges' discretion in employing Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is still uncertain following the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Old Chief and its vacation and remand of United States v. Crowder and United States v. Davis. Robinson evaluates the evidentiary implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions by discussing each case and analyzing the implications of the three cases read together.

Professor Robinson examines the possible effects of stipulations and admissions on the Rule 403 balancing test …

Evidence In A Difference Voice: Some Thoughts On Professor Jonakait's Critique Of A Feminist Approach, Aviva Orenstein

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

"My God!" Is This How A Feminist Analyzes Excited Utterances, Randolph N. Jonakait

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Prior Bad Acts And Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jason L. Mccandless

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This note presents a Due Process analysis of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. These rules, which took effect in July 1995, overturn the exclusionary requirements of Rule 404 exclusively in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation. The new rules allow similar crimes to serve as evidence for purposes other than those stated in Rule 404(b). Now, federal prosecutors may offer evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged sexual misconduct to demonstrate that the defendant committed the sex offense for which he currently is being charged. Rules 413 and 414 reevaluate the historic concern that evidence of prior acts …