Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (4)
- Litigation (3)
- Testimony (2)
- Antitrust (1)
- Common law (1)
-
- Confessions (1)
- Defendants (1)
- Equivalent difference (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Expert (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Federal rule of evidence 403 (1)
- Michael Lewyn (1)
- Milsom (1)
- Miranda Rule (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) (1)
- Probative evidence (1)
- Prosecutors (1)
- Roman (1)
- Self Incrimination (1)
- Sturm College of Law (1)
- The Admissibility of Evidence Protected by Noerr-Pennington (1)
- Writs (1)
- Year books (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Right To Evidence, Bennett L. Gershman
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 …
Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli
Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli
Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli
Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Helping Jurors To Make Sense Of Expert Testimony, David Aaronson
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.
Testimonial Consistency: The Hobgoblin Of The Federal False Declaration Statute, Sidney Delong
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 …
Killing Daddy: Developing A Self-Defense Strategy For The Abused Child, Joelle A. Moreno
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
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.
Equivalent Deterrence: A Proposed Alternative To The Exclusionary Rule In Criminal Proceedings, Robert M. Hardaway
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. . .
The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael Lewyn
The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael Lewyn
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
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.
Defending Miranda, Paul Marcus
Needed: A Rewrite, Paul F. Rothstein
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 …
Bracton, The Year Books, And The 'Transformation Of Elementary Legal Ideas' In The Early Common Law, David J. Seipp
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 …