Law Commons^™

Prosecutorial Storytelling Through Intrinsic Evidence, Brian Chen

Pepperdine Law Review

Crimes make for compelling stories. So juries make for an eager audience. Jurors want to—indeed, expect to—learn what the defendant did, how they did it, and why they deserve punishment. Capable prosecutors know how to deliver. Trial narratives empower jurors to link discrete pieces of evidence and infer facts from circumstantial proof. Only then can they render a verdict consistent with their sense of justice. Federal courts thus afford wide leeway for prosecutors to present their case as they please, with the evidence at their disposal. The Federal Rules of Evidence delineates the scope of that discretion. Under Rule 404(b), …

Forensic Microbiome Evidence: Fourth Amendment Applications And Court Acceptance, Trason Lasley

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

"Buy One Get One Free": How Reindictment Policies Permit Excessive Searches, Katie Carroll

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government decides to stop prosecuting a case, it files a nolle prosequi with the court. Nolle prosequis are slightly different from motions to dismiss. Unlike a motion to dismiss with prejudice, a prosecutor may later reindict a defendant with the same crime without a double jeopardy issue arising after dropping the same case through nolle prosequi. Furthermore, many states do not require judicial approval for a nolle prosequi. Therefore, prosecutors can gain a number of advantages by using nolle prosequi, like avoiding speedy trial deadlines or having a second chance to win important evidentiary hearings.

The advantages of …

Trammel V. United States: Bad History, Bad Policy, And Bad Law, Michael W. Mullane

Maine Law Review

In 1980 the United States Supreme Court decided Trammel v. United States. The opinion changed the Spouses' Testimonial Privilege, overturning centuries of consistent case decisions. The Court based its decision on the history and effect of privilege and a straw poll of state legislative and court decisions on the issue. The Court concluded its decision would permit the admission of more spousal testimony without impairing the benefits the privilege was supposed to confer on spouses. The Court's decision in Trammel was wrong on three counts. The first was bad history overlaid with questionable analysis. The survey of the state's treatment …

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 …

Innovating Criminal Justice, Natalie Ram

Northwestern University Law Review

From secret stingray devices that can pinpoint a suspect’s location, to advanced forensic DNA-analysis tools, to recidivism risk statistic software—the use of privately developed criminal justice technologies is growing. So too is a concomitant pattern of trade secret assertion surrounding these technologies. This Article charts the role of private law secrecy in shielding criminal justice activities, demonstrating that such secrecy is pervasive, problematic, and ultimately unnecessary for the production of well-designed criminal justice tools.

This Article makes three contributions to the existing literature. First, the Article establishes that trade secrecy now permeates American criminal justice, shielding privately developed criminal justice …

The Unintended Consequences Of California Proposition 47: Reducing Law Enforcement’S Ability To Solve Serious, Violent Crimes, Shelby Kail

Pepperdine Law Review

For many years, DNA databases have helped solve countless serious, violent crimes by connecting low-level offenders to unsolved crimes. Because the passage of Proposition 47 reduced several low-level crimes to misdemeanors, which do not qualify for DNA sample collection, Proposition 47 has severely limited law enforcement’s ability to solve serious, violent crimes through California’s DNA database and reliable DNA evidence. This powerful law enforcement tool must be preserved to prevent additional crimes from being committed, to exonerate the innocent, and to provide victims with closure through conviction of their assailants or offenders. Proposition 47’s unintended consequences have led to devastating …

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach

Akron Law Review

The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.

"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins

Akron Law Review

On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The jury trial plays a critical constitutional and institutional role in American jurisprudence. Jury service is, technically, the only constitutional requirement demanded of our citizens and, as such, places an important responsibility on those chosen to serve on any jury, especially within the criminal justice system. Jury research has established that, generally, jurors take their responsibilities seriously; they work with the evidence presented at trial and they reach verdicts that correlate to the narratives they develop throughout the trial. But with estimates of wrongful conviction rates as high as five percent in serious felony cases, how are juries getting it …

The Admissibility Of Trueallele: A Computerized Dna Interpretation System, Katherine L. Moss

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drug Use And The Exclusionary Manque, Jerome A. Busch

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Primer For The Nonmathematically Inclined On Mathematical Evidence In Criminal Cases: People V. Collins And Beyond, David Mccord

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory And Permissive Presumptions In Criminal Cases: The Morass Created By Allen, Shari L. Jacobson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Media Access To Tape-Recorded Evidence In Criminal Trials, Lisa Kahaty Starczewski

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Discovery: An Overview, Harry G. Deitzler, Susan Klimas, Walt Auvil

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Manson V. Brathwaite: Looking For The Silver Lining In The Area Of Eyewitness Identifications

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Discovery--Movement Toward Full Disclosure, Richard B. Pyles

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Prior Convictions To Impeach The Credibility Of The Criminal Defendant, James Alan Harris

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Fingerprint Evidence And Constitutional Objections To Fingerprinting Raised In Criminal And Civil Cases, Andre A. Moenssens

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Involuntary Confessions And New York Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery And Inspection In Federal Criminal Procedure, Lester B. Orfield

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure -- 1955 Tennessee Survey, Austin W. Scott Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Homicide: In Ivy v. State' the defendant, in the course of a fight with A, stabbed B, a peacemaker, killing him. The defendant appealed his conviction of involuntary manslaughter on the theory that the evidence did not support the verdict, since it showed that the defendant was striking at A in self-defense when he unfortunately stabbed B. The court held that the jury could properly find on the evidence either that (1) the defendant, not A, was the aggressor, or (2) even if A were the aggressor, defendant was not in imminent danger or reasonably supposed danger of death or …