Law Commons^™

Summary Of City Of Las Vegas V. Walsh, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 85, 124 P.3d 203, Laura Deeter

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case analyzes the scope of NRS 50.315(4), which allows the submission of an affidavit to prove specific facts about blood testing by experts. The scope of the affidavit was challenged as well as the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.

Post-Crawford: Time To Liberalize The Substantive Admissibility Of A Testifying Witness's Prior Consistent Statements, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States has read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to prevent the prosecution's offering a child abuse victim's prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. As a result of that decision, the statements will also be inadmissible even for the limited purpose of helping to evaluate the credibility of a child, if there is a serious risk that the out-of-court statements would be used on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Moreover, after the Court's March 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, which redesigned the landscape of Confrontation Clause analysis, other …

Testing Jury Reforms, Valerie P. Hans, B. Michael Dann, David H. Kaye, Erin J. Farley, Stephanie Albertson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

DNA evidence has become a key law enforcement tool and is increasingly presented in criminal trials in Delaware and elsewhere. The integrity of the criminal trial process turns upon the jury's ability to understand DNA evidence and to evaluate properly the testimony of experts. How well do they do? Can we assist them in the process?

Using Suppression Hearing Testimony To Prove Good Faith Under United States V. Leon, John E. Taylor

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Bass-Davis V. Davis, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 39, Charles R. Cordova, Jr.

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Learning The Wrong Lessons From "An American Tragedy": A Critique Of The Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, David E. Bernstein

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

This paper is a critique of Margaret Berger and Aaron Twerski, “Uncertainty and Informed Choice: Unmasking Daubert”, forthcoming the Michigan Law Review. Berger and Twerski propose that courts recognize a cause of action that would allow plaintiffs who claim injury from pharmaceutical products, but who do not have sufficient evidence to prove causation, to recover damages for deprivation of informed choice. Berger and Twerski claim inspiration from the litigation over allegations that the morning sickness drug Bendectin caused birth defects. Considering the criteria Berger and Twerski suggest for their proposed cause of action in the context of Bendectin, it appears …

Overenforcement, Alex Stein, Richard Bierschbach

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well-founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement conference, …

Summary Of Rhymes V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 , Patrick Murch

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, on charges of lewdness with a minor under the age of fourteen.

Economic Authority And The Limits Of Expertise In Antitrust Cases, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

In antitrust litigation, the factual complexity and economic nature of the issues involved require the presentation of economic expert testimony in all but a few cases. This dependence on economics has increased in recent years because of the courts' narrowing of per se rules of illegality and the courts' expansion of certain areas of factual inquiry. At the same time, however, courts have limited the scope of allowable expert testimony through the methodological strictures of Daubert and its progeny and through heightened sufficiency requirements. In this Article, Professors Page and Lopatka make four important points about these judicially imposed constraints …

Cross-Examining The Brain: A Legal Analysis Of Neural Imaging For Credibility Impeachment, Charles N. W. Keckler

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

The last decade has seen remarkable process in understanding ongoing psychological processes at the neurobiological level, progress that has been driven technologically by the spread of functional neuroimaging devices, especially magnetic resonance imaging, that have become the research tools of a theoretically sophisticated cognitive neuroscience. As this research turns to specification of the mental processes involved in interpersonal deception, the potential evidentiary use of material produced by devices for detecting deception, long stymied by the conceptual and legal limitations of the polygraph, must be re-examined. Although studies in this area are preliminary, and I conclude they have not yet satisfied …

Strategies For Challenging Police Drug Jargon Testimony, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …

The Hillmon Case, The Macguffin, And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson

Publications

The case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon is one of the most influential decisions in the law of evidence. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1892, it invented an exception to the hearsay rule for statements encompassing the intentions of the declarant. But this exception seems not to rest on any plausible theory of the categorical reliability of such statements. This article suggests that the case turned instead on the Court's understanding of the facts of the underlying dispute about the identity of a corpse. The author's investigations into newspaper archives and the original case documents point to …

Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …

Confrontation After Crawford, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The following edit excerpt, drawn from "The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted and Transformed," 2003-04 Cato Supreme Court Review 439 (2004), by Law School Professor Richard D. Friedman, discusses the impact, effects, and questions generated by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington last year that a defendant is entitled to confront and cross-examine any testimonial statement presented against him. In Crawford, the defendant, charged with attacking another man with a knife, contested the trial court's admission of a tape-recorded statement his wife made to police without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine. The tiral court admitted the statement, and …

Deviance, Due Process, And The False Promise Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 (concerning rape and child abuse, respectively) allow jurors to use the accused's prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Courts have rejected due process challenges to the new rules, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 serves as a check on any fairness concerns. However, courts' application of Rule 403 in cases involving these sexual propensity rules is troubling. Relying on the legislative history of the new rules and announcing a presumption of admissibility, courts have forsaken the traditional operation of …

Summary Of Jezdik V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 15, Brian Reeve

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case involves allegations regarding fraudulent use of a credit card and identity theft. Appellant Michael Jezdik (“Jezdik”) and the victim in this case, Anna Behran (“Behran”), met in Las Vegas in early 1997. They enjoyed a brief romantic relationship but soon parted ways. Approximately three years later, however, Jezdik and Behran rekindled their friendship. Behran told Jezdik that she wanted to purchase a home but did not know how to do so. Jezdik offered to help Behran complete an online mortgage application at his residence. Behran agreed. Throughout the mortgage applicatiosn process, Jezdik acquired access to Behran’s social security …

Admitting Mental Health Evidence To Impeach The Credibility Of A Sexual Assault Complainant, Tess Wilkinson-Ryan

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Brave New World Of Criminal Justice: Neil Gerlach's Genetic Imaginary, Stephen Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In this well written and intriguing book, Neil Gerlach asks why the criminal justice system has accepted DNA evidence in much the same way that our Anglo-Saxon predecessors accepted trial by ordeal. Why have we not instead shown the same caution we show polygraph evidence? To be sure, he does not present the issue in those terms, and might shudder at the analogy. Still, the central issue he pursues in the book is the question of how DNA evidence has managed to assume its current aura of infallibility, as evidence which is somehow uniquely objective and "true": how it has …

Crawford’S Impact On Hearsay Statements In Domestic Violence And Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines the important ancillary doctrines that need to be developed in the wake of Crawford v. Washington (2004) and the "testimonial statement" approach to Confrontation Clause analysis to ensure that when confrontation is provided it in fact satisfies the requirements of the Clause. More than just some opportunity to cross-examine is required. The witness must be asked to make a public accusation in his or her direct testimony rather than simply being made available for questioning by defense counsel. A public accusation in not simply an after-thought of the right; rather, both it and cross-examination are central components. …

Grappling With The Meaning Of 'Testimonial', Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington, has adopted a testimonial approach to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Under this approach, a statement that is deemed to be testimonial in nature may not be introduced at trial against an accused unless he has had an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement and that person is unavailable to testify at trial. If a statement is not deemed to be testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause poses little if any obstacle to its admission.2 A great deal therefore now rides on the meaning of the word "testimonial."

Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation Of Biological Evidence Under Innocence Protection Statutes, Cynthia Jones

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Effective Use Of War Stories In Teaching Evidence, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

There are many ways to teach any law course successfully, including Evidence. It can be approached from a very theoretical perspective or a very practical one. Some professors still use the tried and true case method, while others have moved more toward a problem-oriented approach. Others use movie clips to illustrate important points. A minority of professors have even adopted a NITA approach, essentially teaching Evidence through Trial Practice. This Essay does not advocate any particular method for teaching Evidence. It does take the position, however, that if an Evidence professor has some practical experience, he or she would be …

Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article will briefly survey some of the current and emerging legal issues surrounding mtDNA evidence. Parts I and II discuss basic evidentiary questions, including mtDNA's reliability and admissibility under Daubert as well as the potential problem of jury confusion regarding the probative value of mtDNA. Part III considers the broader potential of mtDNA to supplant microscopic hair analysis, a technique often criticized for its subjectivity and high error rate. Finally, Part IV explores the unique privacy concerns raised by the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, specifically in the context of DNA databanks.

Juror Bias Is A Special Problem In High-Profile Trials, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Scott Peterson's jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Whether he had a fair jury is a question that the appellate courts will confront as they review Peterson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. Would the jury have reached the same decisions if the case had not been so extensively covered in the media? Or was Scott Peterson condemned by media publicity? Whatever your verdict, the Peterson trial provides yet another example of the hurdles to fair trials in high-profile cases.

Evaluating Brady Error Using Narrative Theory: A Proposal For Reform, John B. Mitchell

Faculty Articles

When the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Old Chief v. United States, the Court examined Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in light of a defense offer to stipulate to aspects of the proffered prosecution evidence, purportedly to lessen their prejudicial impact. At the core of the opinion rests the validation of a theory born from such disparate fields as Law and Literature, Sociology, and Narrative Theory. This article argues that, though it was not on the proverbial radar screen of the Court when it decided Old Chief, narrative theory provides the most effective tool available for assessing prejudice …

Like Migratory Birds- Latin American Claimants In U.S. Courts And The Ford-Firestone Rollover Litigation, Manuel A. Gómez

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.