Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Impeaching Lying Parties With Their Statements During Negotiation: Demysticizing The Public Policy Rationale Behind Evidence Rule 408 And The Mediation-Privilege Statutes, Lynne H. Rambo
Washington Law Review
Virtually all American jurisdictions have laws—either rules of evidence or mediation-privilege statutes or both—that exclude from evidence statements that parties make during negotiations and mediations. The legislatures (and sometimes courts) that have adopted these exclusionary rules have invoked a public policy rationale: that parties must be able to speak freely to settle disputes, and they will not speak freely if their statements during negotiation can later be admitted against them. This rationale is so widely revered that many courts have relied on it to prohibit the use of negotiation statements to impeach, even when the inconsistency of the negotiation statement …
Beating Again And Again And Again: Why Washington Needs A New Rule Of Evidence Admitting Prior Acts Of Domestic Violence, Linell A. Letendre
Beating Again And Again And Again: Why Washington Needs A New Rule Of Evidence Admitting Prior Acts Of Domestic Violence, Linell A. Letendre
Washington Law Review
Batterers in Washington who use violence to control their intimate partners routinely avoid conviction and punishment due to the difficulties of prosecuting domestic violence cases. Prosecutors often face complex problems, such as recanting victims, lack of other witnesses, and juries inherently biased against battered women. Although some Washington prosecutors have found ways to introduce evidence of prior domestic violence in certain limited circumstances, Washington Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally precludes the use of evidence showing prior domestic violence. This Comment argues that this evidence rule prevents the admission of highly probative evidence of prior abuse against current or past victims …
One Crime, Many Convicted: Dissociative Identity Disorder And The Exclusion Of Expert Testimony In State V. Greene, Mary Eileen Crego
One Crime, Many Convicted: Dissociative Identity Disorder And The Exclusion Of Expert Testimony In State V. Greene, Mary Eileen Crego
Washington Law Review
In State v. Greene, the Supreme Court of Washington held that expert testimony about Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) was not admissible to support an insanity or diminished-capacity defense. Even though the court acknowledged DID as a generally accepted medical disorder, the court reasoned that such testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact, as required by Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 702, because the court has not established a specific standard for determining the legal responsibility of a defendant with multiple personalities. This Note argues that the Greene court had sufficient scientific evidence to establish a legal standard …