Law Commons^™

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The most significant news during the current survey period continued to be the judiciary's efforts to come to terms with the "tort reform" legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2005, particularly Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") section 24-9-67.1, which purports to adopt, more or less, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

As discussed below, it is beginning to appear that Georgia courts will follow a somewhat different course than that followed by federal courts in their interpretation of Daubert and Daubert's codification in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. As discussed …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Several amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence became effective December 1, 2006. Rule 404, which governs the use of character evidence offered to prove conduct, has been amended to clarify that character evidence is generally not admissible in civil cases. Apparently at the behest of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Rule 408, which addresses the admissibility of evidence of conduct and statements made in settlement negotiations, has been amended to expand the use of settlement evidence in criminal cases. This change will be particularly relevant to Eleventh Circuit criminal law practitioners in light of the court's …

Testimonial? What The Heck Does That Mean?: Davis V. Washington, Lindsay Brewer

Mercer Law Review

The 2004 United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay' statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority held that the Confrontation Clause operates to exclude out-of-court statements that are "testimonial" in nature, unless the person making the statement is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had an opportunity for cross-examination. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who concurred in the judgment, expressed concerns that the decision would lead to uncertainty in future criminal trials because the Court …

Crawford V. Washington And Davis V. Washington'S Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements To Physicians Are Nontestimonial And Admissible As An Exception To The Confrontation Clause, Tom Harbinson

Mercer Law Review

Under Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, the Supreme Court has created a new interpretation of the right of confrontation that holds out-of-court testimonial statements inadmissible without cross-examination. In order to determine if statements for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment should continue to be an exception to confrontation, this Article reviews the historical evidence cited by the Court. The Court's originalist analysis holds that the only exception for what the Court refers to as "testimonial statements" is the exception for dying declarations. This Article establishes that a significant number of confrontation exceptions existed for testimonial statements in …