Law Commons^™

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. Criminal prosecutions for child molestation and abuse are likely the hardest cases of all. Apart from their horrific facts, they present tremendous evidentiary challenges to prosecutors, primarily because of the victims' youth. Consequently, Georgia's appellate courts have repeatedly fashioned new evidentiary rules to assist prosecutors in such cases. Whether these hard cases make bad law no doubt depends on one's perspective. Without question, however, appeals involving child molestation and abuse continue to make new law, and the current survey period was no exception.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey marks the fourteenth year the author has surveyed Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. During these years there has been, in the author's opinion, an unmistakable trend-a trend that continued during the current survey period. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now carefully defers to district judges. The abuse-of-discretion standard that has always governed evidentiary issues on appeal now seems to be the standard of review in practice as well as in name.

Absent some action by Congress, the most extensive changes …

Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix

Mercer Law Review

In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins

Mercer Law Review

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.