Law Commons^™

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Revenge Porn, Thomas Lonardo, Tricia P. Martland, Rhode Island Bar Journal

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

A Step Toward Robust Criminal Discovery Reform In Virginia: The Disclosure Of Witness Statements Before Trial, Jennifer Horan

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juror Assessment Of Certainty About Firearms Identification Evidence, Sarah L. Cooper, Paraic Scanlon

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bias In Blue: Instructing Jurors To Consider The Testimony Of Police Officer Witnesses With Caution, Vida B. Johnson

Pepperdine Law Review

Jurors in criminal trials are instructed by the judge that they are to treat the testimony of a police officer just like the testimony of any other witness. Fact-finders are told that they should not give police officer testimony greater or lesser weight than any other witness they will hear from at trial. Jurors are to accept that police are no more believable or less believable than anyone else. Jury instructions regarding police officer testimony stand in contrast to the instructions given to jurors when a witness with a legally recognized interest in the outcome of the case has testified. …

Innocent Suffering: The Unavailability Of Post-Conviction Relief In Virginia Courts, Kaitlyn Potter

University of Richmond Law Review

This comment examines actual innocence in Virginia: the progress it has made, the problems it still faces, and the possibilities for reform. Part I addresses past reform to the system, spurred by the shocking tales of Thomas Haynesworth and others. Part II identifies three of the most prevalent systemic challenges marring Virginia's justice system: (1) flawed scientific evidence; (2) the premature destruction of evidence; and (3) false confessions and guilty pleas. Part III suggests ways in which Virginia can, and should, address these challenges to ensure that the justice system is actually serving justice.

Newsroom: Good Reason For Secrecy On 38 Studios 8/12/2016, Niki Kuckes, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Texas Rules Of Evidence: Something Old, Something New, And Something Changed, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

On November 19, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an Order amending all of the Texas Rules of Evidence, effective April 1, 2015. In its Order, the Court explained that the amendments were part of an effort to “restyle” the Rules, to make them as consistent as possible with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to make them easier to understand.

The 2015 amendments to the Texas Rules of Evidence are a commendable step toward making the Rules more user-friendly. It is clear to even the casual reader that the reformatting of the Rules, through the use of consistent and …

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Witness Response Manipulation Through Strategic "Non-Leading" Questions (Or The Art Of Getting The Desired Answer By Asking The Right Question), Sydney Beckman

Sydney A. Beckman

No abstract provided.

Ringers Revisited, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this short essay, Professor Underwood addresses an important development in the law dealing with eyewitness testimony and the New Jersey case of State v. Henderson. He gets at the subject by looking back to a 1950s television play starring fellow Kentucky resident, William Shatner. However, in this particular instance, William Shatner would not change the world.

The Admissibility Of Hypnotically Enhanced Testimony In Criminal Trials, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Experience-Based Opinion Testimony: Strengthening The Lay Opinion Rule , Anne Bowen Poulin

Pepperdine Law Review

Determining whether experience-based opinion should be evaluated as lay or as expert opinion has proven particularly challenging to the courts. The Federal Rules of Evidence were amended in 2000, adopting specific, more stringent requirements for expert testimony and hardening the line between lay and expert opinion. Expert opinion testimony is admissible only if based on reliable methodology, whereas lay opinion must be rationally derived using everyday reasoning. The decisions applying the rules do not strike the right balance in regard to experience-based opinion. Too often, courts either accept claims of experience-based expertise at face value or admit experience-based opinion as …

The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Hon. Jane Marum Roush

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Michael T. Judge, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Witness To Justice, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

In the 1988 film The Accused, a young woman named Sarah Tobias is gang raped on a pinball machine by three men while a crowded bar watches. The rapists cut a deal with the prosecutor. Sarah's outrage at the deal convinces the assistant district attorney to prosecute members of the crowd that cheered on and encouraged the rape. This film shows how Sarah Tobias, a woman with little means and less experience, intuits that according to the law rape victims are incredible witnesses to their own victimization. The film goes on to critique what the right kind of witness would …

Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Underwood offers a critique of the present state of scientific and forensic evidence. In the context of discussing four challenges to the field, the author arms the practitioner with strategies and tactics for making effective use of scientific and forensic testimony.

Who Should Control The Decision To Call A Witness: Respecting A Criminal Defendant's Tactical Choices, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

A law student approached me not long ago to discuss a problem he had encountered while helping to prepare a criminal case for retrial. The defendant's first trial ended with a hung jury. The defendant, Steven Brown, now faced a second trial on the same misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer. Although the defendant still wanted to go to trial, Brown told defense counsel that he did not want his elderly father to have to testify again. From defense counsel's standpoint, the father's testimony was critical because he was the only witness corroborating the defendant's version of the event. …

Reconceiving The Right To Present Witnesses, Richard A. Nagareda

Michigan Law Review

Modem American law is, in a sense, a system of compartments. For understandable curricular reasons, legal education sharply distinguishes the law of evidence from both constitutional law and criminal procedure. In fact, the lines of demarcation between these three subjects extend well beyond law school to the organization of the leading treatises and case headnotes to which practicing lawyers routinely refer in their trade. Many of the most interesting questions in the law, however, do not rest squarely within a single compartment; instead, they concern the content and legitimacy of the lines of demarcation themselves. This article explores a significant, …

The Limits Of Cross-Examination, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article, the author compiles the history and methodology of cross-examination from ancient Greece to the modern era. The reality and ethics of cross-examination are explored through anecdotes and detailed histories.

Rule 607: Who May Impeach

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 801(D)(1): Prior Statement By Witness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.