Law Commons^™

Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite

University of Richmond Law Review

In Frye v. United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed a trial court's exclusion of lie detector test results on the ground that such tests had not been "generally accepted" by the scientific community. The Frye rule, or "general acceptance" standard, quickly became the dominant test for the admission of scientific evidence. Decided in 1923, Frye governed evidentiary decisions in a majority of federal circuits for the next seventy years. The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, however, prompted several judges to question the validity of Frye. Since the enactment of the …

A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hearsay, The New York And Federal Rules Of Evidence: What's The Difference?, Richard T. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dangers Of "General Observations" On Expert Scientific Testimony: A Comment On Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert F. Blomquist

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Much Ado About Nothing - The Supreme Court Still Fails To Solve The General Acceptance Problem Regarding Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence , Joseph B. Spero

Journal of Law and Health

This paper will discuss and analyze the problem of scientific evidence and expert testimony from Frye v. United States to the new grounds for admissibility established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This note will specifically focus on some of the changes made by the courts to the common law rule and follow its transformation to a more liberal standard within the federal court system. The paper will conclude that the courts have not really changed their position on the admissibility of scientific evidence and that their current criteria still are …

Chicken Little's Revenge: Strict Judicial Scrutiny Of Scientific Evidence, Scott Charles Walker

Cleveland State Law Review

This note focuses on the current controversy over admissibility standards for novel scientific testimony. It will trace the development of legal standards for expert witness admissibility from the common law through the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the current trend of strict judicial scrutiny. In addition, this note will analyze the issues before the United States Supreme Court in Daubert and will argue, in spite of indications to the contrary, that the Court should not be too quick to continue tightening the judicial noose on scientific experts. Finally, this note will dispute the utility of amending …

Character And Credibility: A Proposal To Realign Federal Rules Of Evidence 608 And 609, Robert D. Okun

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Death Of Discretion: Prior Felony Convictions Automatically Admissible In Civil Actions - Green V. Bock Laundry Machine Co., Kimberly S. Smith

Campbell Law Review

This Note has four objectives. First, the Note examines the facts presented to the Green Court. Second, the Note surveys Rule 609's history and the divergent pre-Green views regarding Rule 609's application in the civil arena. Third, the Note examines Green's analysis and the Supreme Court's conclusion that Rule 609 forecloses any judicial discretion in admitting or excluding prior convictions evidence. And, finally, the Note concludes that North Carolina's Rule 609 should also be interpreted as requiring trial judges to admit prior convictions evidence regardless of unfair prejudice.

Campbell V. Greer: Impeaching Witnesses With Prior Conviction Evidence In A Civil Trial

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fit To Be Fryed: Frye V. United States And The Admissibility Of Novel Scientific Evidence, John D. Borders Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Newsman's Confidential Source Privilege In Virginia, Phillip Randolph Roach Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The two hundredth anniversary celebration of the United States Constitution in 1987 provided an excellent opportunity to reflect upon how we now interpret the political doctrines that influenced the founding fathers in forming our government. At the time of the American Revolution, the basic tenets and freedoms that were written into the Declaration of Independence, and later incorporated into the Bill of Rights through the efforts of James Madison and George Mason of Virginia were considered essential human rights.

Res Gestae, The Present Sense Impression Exception And Extrinsic Corroboration Under Federal Rules Of Evidence 803(1) And Its State Counterparts, William Gorman Passannante

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note presents an overview of the hearsay rule and its general historical development, as well as background on the history of the res gestae doctrine to provide a clearer understanding of the Federal Rules discussed. It examines the current analysis of the three Rule 803 hearsay exceptions, and compares the requirements of external corroboration of hearsay statements under each of Rules 803(1), (2) and (3) to illustrate some inconsistencies in the application of these rules. The author concludes that it is essential that a concise and historically consistent method of applying the present sense impression exception be used, and …

Ambiguity: The Hidden Hearsay Danger Almost Nobody Talks About, Paul Bergman

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Voice Spectrography Evidence: Approaches To Admissibility, Sharon E. Gregory

University of Richmond Law Review

The admissibility of the results of voiceprint' analysis as evidence in a criminal trial has received a great deal of attention in the last ten years, both from legal scholars and in the courts. Although a relative newcomer to the field of forensic science, voice spectrography is not a recent development in the field of evidence; Wigmore foresaw the use of a voiceprint as early as 1937, when he suggested that the individuality of a person's voice provided a possible means of speaker identification.

Improving Expert Testimony, Jack B. Weinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

Our real world outside the ivory towers of academia and the courts grows more and more complex. The law's use of expert witnesses has expanded at a pace reflective of society's reliance on specialized knowledge. Hardly a case of importance is tried today in the federal courts without the involvement of a number of expert witnesses.

Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State V. Parris Goes Too Far, James E. Beaver, Cheryl Mccleary

Seattle University Law Review

This article first demonstrates that courts historically did not trust penal interest statements in general, and that courts were extremely suspicious of any statements by a third party that implicated the defendant. Since Washington adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) verbatim, this article then analyzes the legislative history of the rule. The article concludes that the legislative history favored exclusion of inculpatory statements but that Congress failed to codify the exclusion because of unrelated problems. Finally, the article discusses the confrontation clause problems that arise when inculpatory statements are allowed into evidence. This article argues that the Parris holding should …

Federal Rule Of Evidence 403: Observations On The Nature Of Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence, Victor J. Gold

Washington Law Review

The object of this article is to identify what makes evidence unfairly prejudicial. The first part analyzes the language of and the policies behind Rule 403, and demonstrates that the courts' current ad hoc approach has frustrated those policies and prevented the rule from operating as written. Part II analyzes the nature of unfairly prejudicial evidence in light of the policies intended to be advanced by Rule 403. That part concludes that evidence may be considered unfairly prejudicial when it has a tendency to cause the trier of fact to commit an inferential error. The third part describes recent empirical …

Current Controversies Concerning Witness Immunity In The Federal Courts, Jane Duffy

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inculpatory Declarations Against Penal Interest And The Coconspirator Rule Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Diane M. Frye

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: A Model For Improved Evidentiary Decisionmaking In Washington, Robert H. Aronson

Washington Law Review

This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoidable conflicts encountered in attempting to effectuate the purposes for adopting such rules, suggests that the Federal Rules of Evidence help resolve these conflicts by adhering to several clearly enunciated rationales, and, finally, indicates how the Rules recognize and accommodate important new scientific and social insights on the admissibility of evidence.

Proposed Rule Of Evidence 609: Impeachment Of Criminal Defendants By Prior Convictions, D. Joseph Hurson

Washington Law Review

This comment describes current Washington law on the use of criminal convictions to impeach the testimony of criminal defendants and examines the factors which are relevant to the formation of a more acceptable rule. Adoption of the proposed rule would also affect the rules for impeaching nondefendant witnesses. Only a criminal defendant, however, is in jeopardy of actually being convicted as a result of a jury's misuse of evidence of prior convictions. Because the interests of the criminal defendant witness will be so drastically affected by the prior conviction rule which the Washington Supreme Court ultimately adopts, this comment will …

Elimination Of The Agency Fiction In The Vicarious Admissions Exception, Norman B. Page

Washington Law Review

This note will compare the Washington courts' application of the common law vicarious admissions exception to the broad rule embodied in Federal Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Furthermore, it will identify and analyze the policies upon which the vicarious admissions rule is grounded and will compare the effectiveness of the common law rule and the federal or "broad" rule in fulfilling those policies. It will demonstrate how, in focusing on the substantive law of agency rather than directly on those circumstances which tend to assure a statement's trustworthiness, both rules share a fundamental flaw and, as a result, accomplish only imprecisely the basic …

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

Impeaching The Professional Expert Witness By A Showing Of Financial Interest, Michael H. Graham

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Employing Inconsistent Statements For Impeachment And As Substantive Evidence: A Critical Review And Proposed Amendments Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 801 ( D ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 613, And 607, Michael H. Graham

Michigan Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence have already been employed as a model for the new Uniform Rules of Evidence and for several state codifications, and yet apparently none of the drafters of these schemes gave serious consideration either to expanding admissibility under 801(d)(1)(A) selectively or to controlling potential abuse regarding the use of prior inconsistent statements not substantively admissible. This Article, after exploring the history, development, and rationale of rules 801(d)(1)(A), 613, and 607, proposes that rules 613 and 607 be amended to bring their provisions into conformity with rule 801 (d) (1) (A). In the same vein, the Article …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Florida Evidence Law Compared, David K. Miller

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Social Science Evidence In Person-Oriented Legal Adjudication, Ira P. Robbins

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Practitioner's Guide To The Federal Rules Of Evidence

University of Richmond Law Review

On July 1, 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect. President Ford's signature on Public Law 93-595 was the culmination of nearly twenty years of study, drafting, and debate. Obviously the decision to codify federal evidence law was not lightly made, but the desire for uniformity ultimately made the Rules possible. As with all major legislation, compromise was necessary and certain areas of the law were left untouched. Criminal presumptions represent one such area. In other areas, such as privilege, only minimal codification was possible. The final result is a good set of rules, but one which might …

Substantive Use Of Prior Inconsistent Statements Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Walker Jameson Blakey

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.