Law Commons^™

Why Law Of Evidence Supports The Verdict That The President Is Guilty, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

This post originally appeared on https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477186-why-law-of-evidence-supports-the-verdict-that-the-president-is-guilty

Prejudice-Based Rights In Criminal Procedure, Justin Murray

Articles & Chapters

This Article critically examines a cluster of rules that use the concept of prejudice to restrict the scope of criminal defendants’ procedural rights, forming what I call prejudice-based rights. I focus, in particular, on outcome-centric prejudice- based rights—rights that apply only when failing to apply them might cause prejudice by affecting the outcome of the case. Two of criminal defendants’ most important rights fit this description: the right, originating in Brady v. Maryland, to obtain favorable, “material” evidence within the government’s knowledge, and the right to effective assistance of counsel. Since prejudice (or equivalently, materiality) is an element of these …

Punishment Without Process: Victim Impact Proceedings For Dead Defendants, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

After Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in jail, two judges allowed his accusers to speak in court. This article argues that the proceedings were inappropriate because the criminal case ends when the defendant dies. If the conviction and appeal are not final, there is no finding of guilt, and the defendant is still presumed innocent. Allowing accusers to speak at this time violates the principle of due process and threatens to undermine faith in judges and the criminal justice system in general. While courts are at times legally required to hear from victims of crimes, they were not allowed to do …

Visual Jurisprudence, Richard Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

Lawyers, judges, and jurors face a vast array of visual evidence and visual argument inside the contemporary courtroom. From videos documenting crimes and accidents to computer displays of their digital simulation, increasingly, the search for fact-based justice is becoming an offshoot of visual meaning making. But when law migrates to the screen it lives there as other images do, motivating belief and judgment on the basis of visual delight and unconscious fantasies and desires as well as actualities. Law as image also shares broader cultural anxieties concerning not only the truth of the image, but also the mimetic capacity itself, …

Finding The Original Meaning Of American Criminal Procedure Rights: Lessons From Reasonable Doubt's Development, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

Lessons can be learned about finding the original meaning of American criminal procedure rights by an examination of the development of the reasonable doubt standard. This is for a number of reasons. First, the status of the reasonable doubt standard seems secure. No debate questions the constitutional requirement that an accused can only be convicted if the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard’s original meaning can be explored uncolored by the partisanship often engendered when present seekers of original meaning hope to define a new contour to a constitutional guarantee. Furthermore, serious scholars have studied the reasonable …

Unasked (And Unanswered) Questions About The Role Of Neuroimaging In The Criminal Trial Process, Michael L. Perlin, Valerie Mcclain

Articles & Chapters

The robust neuroimaging debate has dealt mostly with philosophical questions about free will, responsibility, and the relationship between brain abnormalities, violence and crime. This debate, however, obscures several important issues of criminal procedure to which little attention has as of yet been paid: 1) an indigent defendant's right of access to expert testimony in cases where neuroimaging tests might be critical, 2) a defendant's competency to consent to the imposition of a neuroimaging test; and 3) the impact of antipsychotic medications on a defendant's brain at the time that such a test is performed. This article will consider these questions …

The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington asserted that the Confrontation Clause constitutionalized the common law right of confrontation, cases have been suggested that illustrate that right. This short essay considers whether the 1779 English case Rex v. Brasier is such a decision, as some contend. The essay concludes that Brasier says nothing about the right of confrontation and points to a comparable framing-era, American case that indicates that general rules about hearsay and confrontation were not at issue. The essay maintains that if the historical understandings of the right of confrontation and hearsay are to control the Confrontation Clause, then framing-era, American …

Justice Still Fails: A Review Of Recent Efforts To Compensate Individuals Who Have Been Unjustly Convicted And Later Exonerated, Adele Bernhard

Articles & Chapters

With this Article, I hope to motivate state legislators to enact responsible, practical compensation statutes and encourage courts to entertain state law and civil rights claims brought by those who have been unjustly convicted and later exonerated. I begin by looking at the reasons for enacting compensation statutes: uniformity, practicality, popular support, and fairness. Next, I dissect the arguments raised by opponents. Finally, I turn to recent judicial decisions hinting that courts may be stepping in where legislatures fear to tread.

Harmonizing Rules 609 And 608 (B) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Standard Of Appellate Review For Scientific Evidence: Beyond Joiner And Scheffer, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

When Justice Fails: Indemnification For Unjust Conviction, Adele Bernhard

Articles & Chapters

The first section of this article reviews the evidence, both historical and contemporary, documenting the existence and frequency of wrongful convictions. The next dissects an actual case to illustrate how an innocent person can be convicted and why, once the error has been corrected and the conviction is vacated, that person generally has no legal action for damages in the absence of indemnification legislation. The third section argues that society has a moral obligation to assist the wrongfully convicted; that indemnification legislation is a better approach than reliance on ''moral obligation" bills; and that enacting legislation is possible - just …

The Assessment Of Expertise: Transcending Construction, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Text, Texts, Or Ad Hoc Determinations: Interpretation Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Insuring Reliable Fact Finding In Guidelines Sentencing: Why Not Real Evidence Rules, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Making The Law Of Factual Determinations Matter More, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Biased Evidence Rules: A Framework For Judicial Analysis And Reform, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Plain Meaning, And The Changed Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Computer Data And Reliability: A Call For Authentication Of Business Records Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Rudolph J.R. Peritz

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Subversion Of The Hearsay Rule: The Residual Hearsay Exceptions, Circumstantial Guarantees Of Trustworthiness, And Grand Jury Testimony, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is generally prohibited, being admitted only when it falls within a limited class of specific hearsay exceptions. Two general hearsay exceptions were, however, engrafted onto the list of specific ones to allow the courts to confront new and unforseen hearsay problem Lower courts have interpreted these "residual" or "catchall" exceptions differently.

This Article analyzes judicial interpretations of the residual exceptions in cases considering the admissibility of grandjury testimony. The author initially discusses the traditional hearsay approach and reviews the legislative history of the residual exceptions. He then analyzes Fourth Circuit cases considering the …

The Sounds Of Silence: Can Post-Miranda Silence Be Used To Rebut An Insanity Defense, Michael L. Perlin

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

When Blood Is Their Argument: Probabilities In Criminal Cases, Genetic Markers, And, Once Again, Bayes' Theorem, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

Revolutionary advances in blood typing soon will cause a dramatic increase in the presentation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Courts have admitted statistics into criminal trials before, and the proper use of this type of evidence has been debated previously. Until now, however, such mathematical evidence has been rare. Recently, however, a number of courts have admitted probability evidence derived from new and complex blood tests. Such evidence may soon be as commonplace as fingerprint testimony. The courts that have admitted this evidence, however, have done so without learning from past discussions about the proper role of statistical evidence. …

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis Of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems, Donald Doernberg, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

This article, based on a comprehensive empirical study of New York's computerized criminal history information system and on national surveys of similar systems, concludes that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, ambiguous or inappropriate, criminal justice officials and judges routinely use such information in making decisions affecting defendants' liberty. This practice is unconstitutional, and the article suggests ways to regulate criminal history information systems that would protect a defendant's right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.