Law Commons^™

"My God!" Is This How A Feminist Analyzes Excited Utterances, Randolph N. Jonakait

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Evidence In A Difference Voice: Some Thoughts On Professor Jonakait's Critique Of A Feminist Approach, Aviva Orenstein

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues but no startling developments. Two areas in particular should be noted. As suggested in last year's survey, lawyers engaged in civil litigation should continue to be aware of decisions addressing the admissibility of collateral source payments and the remedies available when a party improperly injects the issue of collateral source payments. All trial lawyers, especially those engaged in criminal practice, should take note of the continued evolution of the "necessity" exception to the hearsay rule.

Perhaps the most striking development came not from the appellate courts but rather …

Of Flutes, Oboes And The As If World Of Evidence Law, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Reading Allen's article, I am reminded of a cold war parable I heard during the 1960s. It concerned a flute and an oboe who joined an orchestra one year and immediately set to quarrelling. The flute was distressed because whenever it was playing at its lyrical best the oboe would enter. drowning it out. The oboe was affronted because its deepest, most sonorous passages were invariably ruined by the high-pitched flute butting in. When the orchestra split up for the summer and these quarrelsome instruments went their separate ways, the flute, as it angrily contemplated the oboe, found itself stretching …

The Epistemology Of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy Of Science Would Not Make For Good Philosophy Of Evidence, Brian Leiter

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Went Wrong With Fre Rule 609: A Look At How Jurors Really Misuse Prior Conviction Evidence, Robert D. Dodson

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beating The Prisoner At Prisoner's Dilemma: The Evidentiary Value Of A Witness's Refusal To Testify , Russell Dean Covey

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Witnesses Under Rules 703 And 803(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff, L. Timothy Perrin

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Mental Health Experts On Trial: Free Will And Determinism In The Courtroom, Ronald J. Rychlak, Joseph F. Rychlak

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Liability For Uncertainty: Making Evidential Damage Actionable, Alex Stein, Ariel Porat

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Allocating The Burden Of Proof, Bruce L. Hay

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Decision To Recognize A Psychotherapist Privilege In Jaffee V. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996): The Meaning Of The Term 'Experience' And The Role Of 'Reason' Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 501, Diane Marie Amann, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Scholarly Works

In Jaffee v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a testimonial privilege protecting the patient-psychotherapist relationship. Its decision is based on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which permits courts to decide novel questions of privilege in the light of reason and experience. The Court held that this rule authorized not only recognition of a new privilege, but also a privilege of a broad scope, extending to relationships between patients and licensed clinical social workers. Its decision came as a mild surprise, given a widely shared assumption that Rule 501 creates a …

The Limits Of Cross-Examination, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article, the author compiles the history and methodology of cross-examination from ancient Greece to the modern era. The reality and ethics of cross-examination are explored through anecdotes and detailed histories.

After The Dna Wars: Skirmishing With Nrc Ii, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

This article traces some of the controversies surrounding DNA evidence and argues that although many have been laid to rest by scientific developments confirmed in the National Research Council's second DNA report, there remain several problems which are likely to lead to continued questioning of standard ways prosecutors present DNA evidence. Although much about the report is to be commended, it falls short in several ways, the most important of which is in its support for presenting random match probabilities independent of plausible error rates. The article argues that although one can sympathize with the NRC committee's decision as an …

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors Paul F. Rothstein, Et. Al., Office Of The President V. Office Of Independent Counsel, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Allen, Margaret A. Berger, William J. Bridge, Paul C. Giannelli, Stephen Gillers, Laird C. Kirkpatrick, David P. Leonard, Miguel A. Mendez, Roger C. Park, Myrna S. Raeder, John W. Reed, Mark Reutlinger, Leo M. Romero, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Peter Tillers

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

This Court should grant review not only because this is a case of national importance and prominence, but also because the decision below is a conspicuous departure from settled principles of evidence law. The panel majority concluded that communications between government lawyers and government officials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, at least when those communications are sought by a federal grand jury. That conclusion conflicts with the predominant common-law understanding that the attorney-client privilege applies to government entities and that where the privilege applies, it is absolute (i.e., it protects against disclosure in all types of legal and …

Prior Bad Acts And Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jason L. Mccandless

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This note presents a Due Process analysis of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. These rules, which took effect in July 1995, overturn the exclusionary requirements of Rule 404 exclusively in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation. The new rules allow similar crimes to serve as evidence for purposes other than those stated in Rule 404(b). Now, federal prosecutors may offer evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged sexual misconduct to demonstrate that the defendant committed the sex offense for which he currently is being charged. Rules 413 and 414 reevaluate the historic concern that evidence of prior acts …

A Misapplication Of Daubert: Compton V. Subaru Of America Opens The Gate For Unreliable And Irrelevant Expert Testimony, Jonathan R. Schofield

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Glide Path To An "Inclusionary Rule": How Expansion Of The Good Faith Exception Threatens To Fundamentally Change The Exclusionary Rule, James P. Fleissner

Mercer Law Review

During recent political debates over the federal budget deficit, it became fashionable to speak of a "glide path" to a balanced budget. Advocates of a budget plan would plan certain tax rates and spending limits, factor in a set of economic assumptions, and graph a swooping path of declining deficits over several years. Needless to say, that sort of exercise in prediction does not involve the sort of odds that would inspire confidence in a gambler. The accuracy of the beguiling graph, of course, depends on whether tax and spending commitments are kept and whether a host of economic assumptions …

Posado And The Polygraph: The Truth Behind Post-Daubert Deception Detection, Jeffrey Philip Ouellet

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rape Trauma Syndrome, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Article discusses use of rape trauma syndrom in litigation.

A Wigmorian Defense Of Feminist Methods, Katharine K. Baker

Katharine K. Baker

No abstract provided.

Appellate Review Of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert And Joiner, David L. Faigman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Issues Once Moot: The Other Evidentiary Objections To The Admission Of Exculpatory Polygraph Examinations, James R. Mccall

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Hearsay Evidence: A Comparison Of Two Jurisdictions: United States And Nigeria, Lawrence Okechukwu Azubuike

LLM Theses and Essays

Many jurisdictions have detailed rules of evidence which regulate the facts that are admissible in court. The hearsay rule is one such rule which excludes certain evidence. The hearsay rule has roots in an old common law principle and is featured in many jurisdictions today, but has endured heavy criticisms over time. This paper examines the application of the hearsay rule in the United States and in Nigeria. Both are common law countries, however, the United States’ legal system is more advanced than that of Nigeria. This comparison aims to inform and assist current reform efforts in Nigeria.

Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Fernando Laguarda, Michael B. Bressman

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Once A Rapist? Motivational Evidence And Relevancy In Rape Law, Katharine K. Baker

Katharine K. Baker

Feminist scholars and activists have long sought to reform rape laws and evidence rules in order to increase the number of successful rape prosecutions in the United States. In partial response to these efforts, and in an effort to decrease crime, the 104th Congress amended the Federal Rules of Evidence by adding Rule 413, which makes prior acts of sexual assault by alleged rapists admissible in criminal sexual assault cases. The new Rule 413 was meant to level the legal playing field between rapists and their accusers. Professor Baker argues that the new Rule is misguided because it fails to …

Spoliation Of Evidence In Illinois: The Law After Boyd V. Traveler's Insurance Co., Margaret O'Mara Frossard Hon., Neal S. Gainsberg

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Michael Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article reviews the Jaffee decision.' Part II discusses the meaning of the Supreme Court's opinion, focusing on the Court's analysis of the important interests at stake in recognizing the asserted testimonial privilege. In Part II, this Article argues that the Court followed the intent of Congress in crafting a psychotherapist- patient privilege. Furthermore, the extension of the privilege to cover confidential communications made to social workers indicates that there is room for further development of the privilege. In Part III, the Article argues that Jaffee provides the foundation for recognition of a counselor-battered woman privilege in …

Whoever Fights Monsters Should See To It That In The Process He Does Not Become A Monster: Hunting The Sexual Predator With Silver Bullets -- Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 -- And A Stake Through The Heart -- Kansas V. Hendricks, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Between Rock And A Hard Place: The Right To Testify And Impeachment By Prior Conviction, Alan D. Hornstein

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.