Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill
Michigan Law Review
Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the similarity between the language …
A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch
A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch
Michigan Law Review
Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …
Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan
Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for states to adopt the Daubert standards to purge “junk science” from state courts. However, there is relatively little empirical support for the notion that Daubert affects the quality of expert evidence. Using a large dataset of state court …
Errors In Good Faith: The Leon Exception Six Years Later, David Clark Esseks
Errors In Good Faith: The Leon Exception Six Years Later, David Clark Esseks
Michigan Law Review
Given this vast literature on the good faith exception, little room appears to exist for additional commentary on the propriety of the decision, its theoretical weaknesses or strengths, or what further changes in constitutional criminal procedure it forebodes. This Note will not add to the many voices complaining of the Court's misconstrual of the grounding of the exclusionary rule, nor of its crabbed notion of deterrence. Instead, it accepts, arguendo, the propriety of the exception and its underlying purpose, and then examines the six-year experience with the revised rule. The proliferation of reported applications of the good faith exception …
Recent Developments In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Jerold H. Israel
Recent Developments In The Law Of Search And Seizure, Jerold H. Israel
Book Chapters
This article is designed to provide a survey of recent decisions dealing with several important issues in the area of search and seizure. It is intended primarily as a basic collection of sources. I have, therefore, sought to keep my own commentary at a minimum and the citations to relevant cases at a maximum. Wherever space permits, I have let the courts speak for themselves. In most instances, however, it has been necessary to provide fairly general descriptions of the cases.
The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle
The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle
Vanderbilt Law Review
It is now well settled that involuntary confessions must be excluded from evidence in all criminal trials in state courts. It has been difficult, however, to distinguish a voluntary confession from an involuntary one, because the term "involuntary" is not well defined. This lack of definition, which creates great problems for state trial and appellate courts in attempting to apply the rule to individual cases, has, in turn, stemmed from a lack of understanding of the reasons for excluding involuntary confessions. The United States Supreme Court has handed down thirty-four coerced confession cases, holding confessions admissible in some factual situations …
The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland
The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
In analyzing the reasons why "trial by jury has declined to such an extent that it has come in many cases to be an avowed maxim of professional action,--a good case is for the court; a bad case is for the jury,"-JUDGE DILLON, in his LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE, pp. 130-2, credits "the false principle known as the scintilla doctrine" with a large degree of responsibility.
Waiver Of The Statutory Protection To The Confidential Relation Of Physician And Patient, Harry B. Hutchins
Waiver Of The Statutory Protection To The Confidential Relation Of Physician And Patient, Harry B. Hutchins
Articles
Waiver of the Tatutory Protection of the Confidential Relation of Physician and Patient.--The subject of the disclosure by the physician upon the witness stand of confidential communications between himself and his patient has already received attention in this journal: 2 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, p.687; 3 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, p. 311. The case of Long v. Garey Investment Company, decided by the Iowa Supreme Court December 15, 1906, may be briefly noticed, as it discusses a phase of the subject in regard to which the courts are not in entire harmony, namely, the waiver of the privilege that the statute confers.
Compensation Of Experts, Henry W. Rogers
Compensation Of Experts, Henry W. Rogers
Articles
The law relating to the compensation of experts is somewhat unsettled, and the cases are not numerous in which the subject has been considered. This very fact, however, lends additional interest to the subject, and the question is one of great importance. In some of the States the law expressly provides that when a witness is summoned to testify as an expert he shall be entitled to extra compensation. Such a provision may be found in the laws of Iowa, of North Carolina, and of Rhode Island.