Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Maine School of Law (2)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
-
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- The University of Notre Dame Australia (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- Publication
-
- Maine Law Review (2)
- Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology (2)
- Georgia Law Review (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1)
- Mitchell Hamline Law Review (1)
-
- Nevada Law Journal (1)
- The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Forum (1)
- University of Baltimore Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Law Review Online (1)
- West Virginia Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Law Review Online (1)
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rus V Comcare: The Rules Of Evidence In The Aat, Nicholas Cardaci
Rus V Comcare: The Rules Of Evidence In The Aat, Nicholas Cardaci
The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review
The Rus v Comcare cases arise from a claim for compensation by the widowed Ms Rus. The cases saw a highly contentious piece of evidence tendered. This evidence was hearsay of a lay opinion that answered the ultimate issue. The evidence was considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) and the Federal Court of Australia (‘Court’). These considerations demonstrate the uncertainty of how the rules of evidence are applicable in tribunals. Specifically, the cases raise applicability of the rules against opinion and hearsay evidence. Further, the relevance of delay and the parol evidence rule to these cases is raised. The …
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Maine Law Review
In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …
Appendix: Conjunction-Problem V. Non-Conjunction-Problem Jurisdictions, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober
Appendix: Conjunction-Problem V. Non-Conjunction-Problem Jurisdictions, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober
William & Mary Law Review Online
This appendix presents the relevant data from our survey of jury instructions in support of the article in the print edition of the William & Mary Law Review. The Conjunction Problem and the Logic of Jury Findings (59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 619, 673-87 (2017))
The Conjunction Problem And The Logic Of Jury Findings, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober
The Conjunction Problem And The Logic Of Jury Findings, David S. Schwartz, Elliott Sober
William & Mary Law Review
For several decades, evidence theorists have puzzled over the following paradox, known as the “conjunction paradox” or “conjunction problem.” Probability theory appears to tell us that the probability of a conjunctive claim is the product resulting from multiplying the probabilities of its separate conjuncts. In a three element negligence case (breach of duty, causation, damages), a plaintiff who proves each element to a 0.6 probability will have proven her overall claim to a very low probability of 0.216. Either the plaintiff wins the verdict based on this low probability (if the jury focuses on elements), or the plaintiff loses despite …
State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon
State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon
Maine Law Review
Darrell Thurston and Suzanne Harmon were romantically involved on an intermittent basis for five years and had one child together. As a result of an altercation that took place at Harmon’s home in Sullivan, Maine, on September 27, 2007, between Thurston and Harmon, Thurston was charged with assault, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of crime or injury. The testimony during the trial illuminated the major factual differences between Thurston’s and Harmon’s accounts of the night the incident took place. Thurston requested a self defense jury instruction based on his version of what had happened, which the trial court ultimately denied. …
Juror Assessment Of Certainty About Firearms Identification Evidence, Sarah L. Cooper, Paraic Scanlon
Juror Assessment Of Certainty About Firearms Identification Evidence, Sarah L. Cooper, Paraic Scanlon
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Dangers Of E-Discovery And The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Ryan J. Reeves
The Dangers Of E-Discovery And The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Ryan J. Reeves
Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology
No abstract provided.
The Moment Of Truth For Fmri: Will Deception Detection Pass Admissibility Hurdles In Oklahoma?, Julie Elizabeth Myers
The Moment Of Truth For Fmri: Will Deception Detection Pass Admissibility Hurdles In Oklahoma?, Julie Elizabeth Myers
Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology
No abstract provided.
Pinging Into Evidence: The Implications Of Historical Cell Site Location Information, Alexandra C. Smith
Pinging Into Evidence: The Implications Of Historical Cell Site Location Information, Alexandra C. Smith
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, Marc A. Desimone Jr.
"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, Marc A. Desimone Jr.
University of Baltimore Law Review
This article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues why …
The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George
The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Changing The Culture Of Disclosure And Forensics, Valena Beety
Changing The Culture Of Disclosure And Forensics, Valena Beety
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
This Essay responds to Professor Brandon Garrett’s Constitutional Regulation of Forensic Evidence, and, in particular, his identification of the dire need to change the culture of disclosing forensic evidence. My work on forensics is—similarly to Garrett’s—rooted in both scholarship and litigation of wrongful convictions. From this perspective, I question whether prosecutors fully disclose forensics findings and whether defense attorneys understand these findings and their impact on a client’s case. To clarify forensic findings for the entire courtroom, this Essay suggests increased pre-trial discovery and disclosure of forensic evidence and forensic experts. Forensic analysts largely work in police-governed labs; therefore, …
Richards Ii Takes A Bite Out Of Forensic Science, Michelle Cornell-Davis
Richards Ii Takes A Bite Out Of Forensic Science, Michelle Cornell-Davis
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mass Suppression: Aggregation And The Fourth Amendment, Nirej Sekhon
Mass Suppression: Aggregation And The Fourth Amendment, Nirej Sekhon
Georgia Law Review
The FourthAmendment's exclusionary rule requires that
criminal courts suppress evidence obtained as a result of
an unconstitutionalsearch or seizure. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly stated that suppression is purely
regulatory, not remedial. Its only purpose is to deter
future police misconduct, not to remedy past privacy or
liberty harms suffered by the defendant. Exclusion, in
other words, is for the benefit of community members who
might, sometime in the future, be subject to police
misconduct like that endured by the defendant.
Exclusion's regulatory purpose would be greatly aided if
criminal courts could identify when a suppression motion
involved Fourth Amendment …
Unpacking Frye-Mack: A Critical Analysis Of Minnesota’S Frye-Mack Standard For Admitting Scientific Evidence, Zach Alter
Unpacking Frye-Mack: A Critical Analysis Of Minnesota’S Frye-Mack Standard For Admitting Scientific Evidence, Zach Alter
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
Recent Development: Seley-Radtke V. Hosmane: The Standard Of Proof Requirement In A Purely Private Defamation Action For An Individual Asserting A Common Law Conditional Privilege Is Preponderance Of The Evidence, Makeda Curbeam
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a party seeking to overcome a common law conditional privilege in a purely private defamation suit must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Seley-Radtke v. Hosmane, 450 Md. 468, 474, 149 A.3d 573, 576 (2016). The court also held that evidentiary issues not addressed by the court of special appeals are not subject to review by the court of appeals. Id. at 510, 149 A.3d at 598 (citing Md. R. 8- 131(b)(1)). Further, the court held that prejudicial evidence irrelevant to a claim is not admissible at trial. Seley-Radtke, 450 …