Law Commons^™

The Right To Evidence, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Although its theoretical basis may be disputed, nobody questions the proposition that a person charged with a crime has a constitutional right to present a defense. Presenting a defense naturally requires access to proof. Access includes not only the availability of evidence, but also its permissible use. Consider some examples: A defendant wants to testify, but his lawyer's threats drive him off the stand. A witness who might be expected to give favorable testimony for the defense appears at trial but refuses to testify. A defense witness wants to testify, but because the defendant failed to notify the prosecutor about …

Admissibility Of Expert Testimony In Child Sexual Abuse Cases In California: Retire Kelly-Frye And Return To A Traditional Analysis, Linda Carter

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Equivalent Deterrence: A Proposed Alternative To The Exclusionary Rule In Criminal Proceedings, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no other area of American jurisprudence is as controversial as the exclusionary rule. Rejected by all other civilized countries2 and held in contempt by much of the American public, the rule reached its zenith during the Warren Court, only to be chipped away a little at a time by the Burger Court. Indeed, if the rule is ever to die, it seems destined to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. . .

Killing Daddy: Developing A Self-Defense Strategy For The Abused Child, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Illinois' Latest Version Of The Defense Of Voluntary Intoxication: Is It Wise? Is It Constitutional?, 39 Depaul L. Rev. 15 (1989), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Helping Jurors To Make Sense Of Expert Testimony, David Aaronson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Today's jurors frequently sit in trials where confusing and conflicting expert testimony is likely to be presented by sophisticated and highly trained individuals, using terminology unfamiliar to the average person. Proposals have been made and trial courts are experimenting with various procedures—none thoroughly evaluated— to improve jurors’ ability to cope with such testimony. My purpose here is to more clearly identify the problem and to review some of the reform proposals.

The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Defending Miranda, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Consistency: The Hobgoblin Of The Federal False Declaration Statute, Sidney Delong

Faculty Articles

This article focuses on the inconsistent statement provision of the Federal False Declaration Statute. Part I of this article identifies certain anomalous aspects of perjury that make it particularly difficult to control by threats of punishment. Perjury's resemblance to an innocent mistake creates a risk that criminal sanctions will be misapplied. These sanctions may have counterproductive effects, at times inducing people to commit perjury and at others inhibiting people from correcting inaccurate testimony that they have previously given. Part II demonstrates the way in which the conflict between the goals of deterrence and mitigation is manifested in the federal perjury …

Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Bracton, The Year Books, And The 'Transformation Of Elementary Legal Ideas' In The Early Common Law, David J. Seipp

Faculty Scholarship

The language of the common law has a life and a logic of its own, resilient through eight centuries of unceasing talk. Basic terms of the lawyer's specialized vocabulary, elementary conceptual distinctions, and modes of argument, which all go to make “thinking like a lawyer” possible, have proved remarkably durable in the literature of the common law. Two fundamental distinctions—between “real” and “personal” actions and between “possessory” and “proprietary” remedies—can be traced back to their early use in treatises of the first generations of professional common law judges and in reports of courtroom dialogue from the first generations of professional …

Needed: A Rewrite, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Proposed far-reaching changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence are of major practical significance to every lawyer involved in the criminal justice process. The proposed changes are contained in a recent report by the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section's Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Committee. The report was selected for publication in Federal Rules Decisions, 120 F.R.D. 299 (1988), because of its interest to federal practitioners and judges. More than 40 judges, lawyers, and scholars were involved in the four-year study, and experts on each particular rule acted as "reporters" to the committee on those areas.

The report …