Law Commons^™

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's Answers To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Summary Of Fields V. State,125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 36, John F. Burns

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case is an appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The appellant asserts error in admitting prior bad act evidence, error in excluding witness testimony as inadmissible extrinsic evidence, error in admitting telephone conversations subject to martial privilege, error in instructing the jury on specific intent, and improper argument by the prosecutor in closing argument.

Summary Of Fields V. State, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57, Kimberly Duque

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting prior bad act evidence because (1) it did not fall within the common-plan-or-scheme exception or because (2) its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Book Review: Carl Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law, And The Possibility Of Justice, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

Carl F. Cranor’s Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice is a sustained, comprehensive argument that the Daubert gatekeeping regime has tilted the playing field against injured plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. More generally, Cranor joins those who argue that the Daubert regime has not fared well in practice. Complex scientific evidence is not handled well in trials because scientific methods, data, and inferential reasoning are not well understood by gatekeeping judges. Cranor’s goal is to help solve this problem by offering a detailed description of the patterns of reasoning, evidence collection, and inference in nonlegal scientific settings. …

Repeating, Yet Evading Review: Admitting Reliable Expert Testimony In Criminal Cases Still Depends Upon Who Is Asking, Wes R. Porter

Publications

A trial court must find that the proponent of expert witness testimony has set forth adequate evidence that the testimony is based upon reliable methods and will be helpful to the trier of fact. Much has been written regarding the reliability prong since the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., yet a severe prejudice to the criminally accused persists today in some trial courts’ analyses of the often overlooked helpfulness prong. Despite the straight-forward articulation of helpfulness, described as “fit” or mere relevance, some trial courts apply the helpfulness prong differently depending upon whether the expert testimony …

We Have A "Purpose" Requirement If We Can Keep It, James F. Flanagan

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court in Giles v. California held that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only when he purposefully keeps the witness away. Many see the "purpose" requirement as an unjustified bar to the use of victim hearsay, particularly in domestic violence prosecutions where victims often refuse to appear. The author defends Giles as a correct reading of history, and independently justified by longstanding precedent that constitutional trial rights can only be lost by intentional manipulation of the judicial process. Moreover, the purpose requirement does not prevent prosecutions or convictions because the definition of testimonial hearsay is …

Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence And Expert Testimony: One Potato, Two Potato, Daubert, Frye, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This handout from a Maryland Judicial Institute presentation covers the Maryland Rules concerning expert testimony and the ways they differ from the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Summary Of Sonia F. Ex Rel. J.M. V. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 38, Jason Vanmeetren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Nevada’s rape shield law2 applies only to criminal proceedings and not civil cases. However, the district court may limit the discovery of an alleged victim’s sexual history to protect the victim’s privacy.

The Sixth Amendment And Expert Witnesses In Criminal Tax Cases, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

Recently, in the Baxter case, a federal district court vacated the sentence imposed as a result of a guilty plea in a criminal tax case. The court held that the failure of defense counsel to retain the services of an expert in tax crimes sentencing violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.

This installment of the Tax Crimes column explores Baxter. Part A briefly notes the civil and criminal tax contexts in which tax experts are used. Part B describes Baxter and its holding. Part C asks whether defense counsel in criminal tax cases should always retain a …

The Legality And Practicality Of Remote Witness Testimony, Fredric Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Out-Of-Court Statements: The Concentric Hoops Of The Hearsay Rule And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This 44 page booklet created for the Maryland Judicial Institute outlines hearsay evidence, how hearsay overlaps with the Confrontation Clause, and the exceptions to hearsay under Maryland law.

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

The Dna Of An Argument: A Case Study In Legal Logos, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article develops a framework for analyzing legal argument through an in-depth case study of the debate over federal actions for post-conviction DNA access. Building on the Aristotelian concept of logos, this Article maintains that the persuasive power of legal logic depends in part on the rhetorical characteristics of premises, inferences, and conclusions in legal proofs. After sketching a taxonomy that distinguishes between prototypical argument logo (formal, empirical, narrative, and categorical), the Article applies its framework to parse the rhetorical dynamics at play in litigation over post-conviction access to DNA evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, focusing in particular on …

Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

Drawing on research into the use of experts in early 19th-century criminal trials, the image of mad alchemists in popular culture representations of science, and the distinction between empirical and contingent “interpretive repertoires” in the discourse of scientific controversies, this article explores the controversy over arsenic-detection technologies prior to the Marsh test. In addition to noting the predictable criticism of incompetent expertise in the service of law, this article highlights implied accusations of hubris and amorality on the part of over-confident experts, both in the early 19th-century and in today's crisis of forensic science.

Standards Of Proof Revisited, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay focuses not on how fact-finders process evidence but on how they apply the specified standard of proof to their finding. The oddity that prompts speculation is that, in noncriminal cases, the common law asks only that the fact appear more likely than not, while the Civil Law seems to apply the same high standard in these cases as it does in criminal cases. As a psychological explanation of the cognitive processes involved, some theorists posit that the bulk of fact-finding is an unconscious process, powerful but dangerous, which generates a level of confidence against which the fact-finder could …

Vol. Ix, Tab 43 - Google Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Exclude Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Confronting Scientific Reports Under Crawford V. Washington, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In People v. Rawlins and People v. Meekins, the New York Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the admissibility of scientific reports prepared by non-testifying forensic experts for use by the prosecution in a criminal trial under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Rawlins involved a fingerprint comparison report prepared by a police forensic expert, and Meekins involved a DNA profile prepared by a technician in a private laboratory. The constitutional issue in both cases was whether these reports were “testimonial” statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, …

Saving Face: The Benefits Of Not Saying I'M Sorry, Brent T. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Deficiencies And Evidentiary Uncertainties In International Criminal Trials, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

In this article, the author describes the flaws inherent in the process of international criminal tribunals which seek to punish the inhumane actions of dictators. The author first describes how international criminal trials confront severe impediments to accurate factfinding. It continues on to discuss the failure of witnesses in these tribunals to accurately convey the information needed to make a fully- informed decision. This problem is compounded by the fact that what clear information is provided during witness testimony often is inconsistent with the information that the witness previously provided in a pre-trial statement. The author also explores the causes …

Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for states to adopt the Daubert standards to purge “junk science” from state courts. However, there is relatively little empirical support for the notion that Daubert affects the quality of expert evidence. Using a large dataset of state court …

Sealed Documents To Prevent “Perfectly Legitimate” Review And Dissemination Of Privileged Confidential Information, Bridget Hoy, Dana M. Malkus

All Faculty Scholarship

A recent federal district court case serves as a reminder that when filing documents through an electronic filing system, the information contained in the documents is immediately available to anyone “through perfectly legitimate means: by reading a public filing.” The January 6, 2009 opinion in E-Smart Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Wayne Drizin, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 272 (N.D. Ca Jan. 6, 2009), demonstrates that when caution is not taken at the onset to seal documents that contain privileged or confidential information, there might be little recourse for immediate distribution of information that one might later determine …

The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

This short essay is a summary of my assessment of the meaning of the "vanishing trial" phenomenon. It addresses the obvious question: "So what?" It first briefly reviews the evidence of the trial's decline. It then sets out the steps necessary to understand the political and social signficance of our vastly reducing the trial's importance among our modes of social ordering. The essay serves as the Introduction to a book, The Death of the American Trial, soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press.

Scientific Evidence And Prosecutorial Misconduct In The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

The need for pretrial discovery in criminal cases is critical. A defendant's right to confrontation, effective assistance of counsel, and due process often turns on pretrial disclosure. This essay discusses a case that demonstrates this point.

The Nrc Report And Its Implications For Criminal Litigation, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, issued a landmark report on forensic science in February 2009. In the long run, the report’s recommendations, if adopted, would benefit law enforcement and prosecutors. The recommendations would allow forensic science to develop a strong scientific basis and limit evidentiary challenges regarding the reliability of forensic evidence. In keeping with its congressional charge, however, the NRC Committee did not directly address admissibility issues. Nevertheless, given its content, the report will inevitably be cited in criminal cases. Indeed, within months, the United States Supreme Court cited the report, noting …

The Expanding Use Of The Res Gestae Doctrine, H. Patrick Furman, Ann England

Publications

This article provides a brief history of the doctrine of res gestae and an analysis of its current usage in both Colorado state and federal courts.

Embracing Paradox: Three Problems The Nlrb Must Confront To Resist Further Erosion Of Labor Rights In The Expanding Immigrant Workplace, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the Supreme Court's 2002 Hoffman Plastic Compounds opinion, normally considered in terms of its social justice ramifications, from the different perspective of NLRB attorneys tasked with pursuing enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) under the conceptually (and practically) odd rubric that some NLRA employees (unauthorized workers) have no remedy under the NLRA. The article focuses on three problems evincing paradox. First, NLRB attorneys prosecuting cases involving these workers will probably gain knowledge of unlawful background immigration conduct. To what extent must the attorneys disclose it, and to whom? Second, NLRB attorneys are extraordinarily reliant on …

Propensity Or Stereotype?: A Bad Evidence Experiment In Indian Country, Aviva Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning rape and child abuse, Rules 413 and 414, permit the government to admit the accused’s prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Although these rules have been roundly criticized, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that in allowing propensity evidence for federal sex offenses (as opposed to offenses under state law), these rules disproportionately affect one distinct civilian population: Indians.

The de facto concentration of Rules 413-414 cases in Indian Country raises troubling questions regarding what it means to have …

Honoring Margaret Berger With A Sensible Idea: Insisting That Judges Employ A Balancing Test Before Admitting The Accused's Convictions Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce - Or Replace - The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, David A. Harris

Articles

In Hudson v. Michigan, a knock-and-announce case, Justice Scalia's majority opinion came close to jettisoning the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The immense costs of the rule, Scalia said, outweigh whatever benefits might come from it. Moreover, police officers and police departments now generally follow the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, so the exclusionary rule has outlived the reasons that the Court adopted it in the first place. This viewpoint did not become the law because Justice Kennedy, one member of the five-vote majority, withheld his support from this section of the opinion. But the closeness of the vote on …

On Race Theory And Norms, Christian Sundquist

Articles

This article has been adapted from an address given at the Albany Law Review Symposium in Spring 2009. This article discusses the judicial acceptance of DNA random match estimates, which uses DNA analysis to estimate the likelihood that a criminal defendant is the source of genetic material that is found at a crime scene. Relying on race, these tests demonstrate how such a re-inscription of race as a biological entity threatens the modern conception of race as a social construction, and how those estimates should be rejected as inadmissible on a doctrinal level under the Federal Rules of Evidence.