Law Commons^™

The 2007 Rejection Of Anonymous Language Analysis By The Swedish Migration Court Of Appeal: A Precedent?, Gregor Noll

Gregor Noll

No abstract provided.

Doubting What The Elders Have To Say, David Milward

Dr. David Milward

The Supreme Court of Canada has articulated several legal principles that mandate the flexible and generous treatment of Aboriginal oral history evidence in support of Aboriginal rights claims. Lower courts, however, continue to devalue such evidence, often displaying explicit disregard for the legal principles, in order to defeat rights claims and subordinate Aboriginal interests to state sovereignty. This has no rational basis, since it is now clearly established that documentary historical evidence does not have any innate superiority over oral history evidence when it comes to ascertaining what happened in the past. This article proposes several solutions. These include educating …

Strategic Enforcement, Alex Stein, Margaret H. Lemos

Alex Stein

Doctrine and scholarship recognize two basic models of enforcing the law: the comprehensive model, under which law-enforcers try to apprehend and punish every violator within the bounds of feasibility; and the randomized model, under which law enforcers economize their efforts by apprehending a small number of violators and heightening their penalties so as to make violations unattractive. This Article supplements this list of options by developing a strategic model of law enforcement. Under this model, law enforcers concentrate their effort on the worst, or most rampant, violators at a given point in time while leaving all others unpunished. This enforcement …

“Mystic Infallibility” And “Fancy Devices”: A Conceptual Analysis Of The Application Of The Frye Test, John F. Johnson Iii

John F Johnson III

The Frye test stood as the first widely used test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence and stood as the majority test until the Supreme Court introduced the Daubert test in 1993. Despite taking a backseat, seventeen jurisdictions, including California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, continue to apply the Frye test. The Frye test holds that a when a party provides novel scientific evidence, that party must demonstrate the proffered evidence relies on principles, methodologies, and devices that are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Commentators frequently discuss the test’s general acceptance requirement, but ignore the preliminary issue …

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment’S Protections Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order …

Seeing Is Believing; Or Is It? An Emperical Study Of Computer Simulations As Evidence., Robert B. Bennett, Jordan H. Leibman, Richard Fetter

Robert B. Bennett

Relying on the old adage, "seeing is believing," we conclude that the jury may give undue weight to an animated reconstruction of the accident .... It would be an inordinately difficult task for the plaintiff to counter, by cross-examination or otherwise, the impression that a computerized depiction of the accident is necessarily more accurate than an oral description of how the accident occurred. Because the expert's conclusion would be graphically depicted in a moving and animated form, the viewing of the computer simulation might more readily lead the jury to accept the data and premises underlying the defendant's expert's opinion... …

Some Questions About Interpretation, Ecto-Ambiguity, Tradition, And Conflicts Of Law And Fact, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

Questions raised by the interpretation of a conrtract clause with the aid of the following devices: Recognizing a more restrictive "traditional" understanding; Finding contract ambiguity between actual wording and traditional understanding; Resolving its intent by the canon contra proferentem; Accepting the finding of intent as controlling foreign state law

Voluntary Client Testimony As A Privilege Waiver: Is Ohio's Law Caught In A Time Warp?, David B. Alden, Matthew P. Silversten

David B. Alden

Ohio’s attorney-client privilege statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.02(A), has been interpreted to provide for a broad waiver of the attorney-client privilege whenever the client testifies voluntarily, including when the client’s testimony does not disclose the substance of the otherwise privileged communications. Finding a privilege waiver under these circumstances is virtually unique to Ohio. This article (1) traces the origins of this rule back to Ohio’s first code of civil procedure, which was enacted in 1853, (2) identifies the long-forgotten reasons that prompted its adoption; (3) analyzes decisions that have applied it from the mid-nineteenth century through today; (4) assesses …

Live Hearings And Paper Trials, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing or trial, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing live testimony than if the judges were to review …

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

The “anchoring effect” is cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted by Congress, adopted by 34 states and has survived for over 35 years. How did this happen? What is …

“Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided “Not Hearsay” Terminology.”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

Deal Or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants To Present Evidence That They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

Federal Rule of Evidence 410 deems inadmissible statements made during plea discussions when offered “against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in plea discussions….” Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Mezzanatto, however, prosecutors can, and often do, force defendants to waive the protections of this Rule to get to the plea bargaining table. Conversely, courts categorically have found that defendants cannot present evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains, despite the plain language of the Rule not precluding the admission of such evidence. This article addresses the question of whether courts can …

Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield

Sam Stonefield

Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”

This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

Managing The Unmanageable: A Brief Accounting Of A Special Master’S Thirty Years Of Experience In Complex Litigation, Paul Rice

Paul Rice

Managing an efficient, but fair, pretrial process in a large and complex case has always been a challenge. With the advent of electronic communications and the corresponding explosion of privilege claims, this challenge has become significantly more difficult. Indeed, it is not uncommon for corporate parties to assert tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of privilege claims. Furthermore, the resolution of these privilege questions is often compounded by difficult choice of law questions that can have the result of different substantive principles being applied to identical discovery demands originating in different jurisdictions. Additionally, before addressing the increasingly voluminous …

Saying “I’M Sorry” Is Not So Simple: Embracing The Complexity Of The Apology With A New Evidentiary Rule, Amy Poyer

Amy Poyer

Apologies are everywhere. In day-to-day life, when a person apologizes, they must deal with a myriad of consequences for that apology. These may include vulnerability to the victim, embarrassment, a bruised ago, or even rejection of the apology by the victim. However, when the wrong one apologizes for turns into a lawsuit, the one apologizing has an additional penalty. Piled on to the emotional consequences that accompany any apology, a potential defendant must also worry about his apology’s use against him in court to prove that he is liable. Recently, a debate has developed over whether or not the law …

Designing Privilege For The Tax Profession: Comparing I.R.C. § 7525 With New Zealand’S Non-Disclosure Right, Keith A. Kendall

Keith A Kendall

The United States and New Zealand are the only two common law jurisdictions to have successfully extended attorney-client privilege to non-lawyer tax advisers. While aimed at the common goal of such an extension, the two statutory rules implement very different means to achieve this purpose; the United States importing the common law into statute, with New Zealand creating a completely separate statutory right. An examination of the context and legislative histories of the respective statutory provisions finds that these forms are consistent with the legislative approach to evidentiary privileges in each jurisdiction and is, therefore, appropriate in each case. Other …

Silent At Sentencing: Waiver Doctrine And A Capital Defendant's Right To Present Mitigating Evidence After Schriro V. Landrigan, Dale E. Ho

Dale E Ho

The consideration of mitigating evidence—evidence that weighs against the imposition of the death penalty in a capital defendant’s individual case—has been deemed a “constitutionally indispensable” feature of a valid capital sentencing scheme. And yet, Jeffrey Landrigan, like many capital defendants, was sentenced to death without the consideration of any mitigating evidence whatsoever. Landrigan’s trial counsel failed to uncover substantial evidence of Landrigan’s history of severe physical and sexual abuse as a child, and of the possible biological effects of his mother’s alcohol and drug abuse. Every member of the Ninth Circuit en banc panel considering his case deemed his counsel’s …

People V. Bermudez: Is A Freestanding Claim Of Actual, Factual Innocence A Ground For Reversal Under The New York State Constitution?, Gregory C. Rosenfeld

Gregory C Rosenfeld

No abstract provided.

Jesus: Dead Or Alive? A Lawyer’S View Of The Evidence For The Resurrection, Neil J. Foster

Neil J Foster

This paper considers whether the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth would be admissible under the principles of the Australian law of evidence. It concludes that it would be.

Allshouse V. Pennsylvania, Brief Of The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Pennsylvania Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Public Defender Association Of Pennsylvania, And The Defender Association Of Philadelphia, As Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Petitioner, Jules Epstein

Jules Epstein

No abstract provided.

Faint-Hearted Fidelity To The Common Law In Justice Scalia’S Confrontation Clause Trilogy, Ellen Yee

ellen yee

FAINT-HEARTED FIDELITY TO THE COMMON LAW IN JUSTICE SCALIA’S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE TRILOGY Ellen Liang Yee ABSTRACT In Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), the Supreme Court issued the third Confrontation Clause opinion in its recent Crawford trilogy. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Giles Court reiterated its interpretive approach in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is “most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.” The Court’s decision purports to hold that a defendant does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment confrontation …

Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In this symposium contribution, I argue that (1) courts infringe on jurors' deliberative autonomy in a morally problematic way whenever they refuse to admit evidence that is both relevant and reasonably available; (2) this infringement is especially problematic in the Fourth Amendment setting; and (3) although there are several ways in which these moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, the best approach might be to abandon the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule entirely.

Evidence Verite And The Law Of Film, Jessica M. Silbey

Jessica Silbey

This paper explores a puzzle concerning the authority of certain images that increasingly find themselves at the center of legal disputes: surveillance or “real time” film images that purport to capture an event about which there is a dispute. Increasingly, this kind of “evidence verité” is used in United States courts of law as the best evidence of what happened. Film footage of arrests, criminal confessions, photographs of crime scenes (during and after) is routinely admitted into court as evidence. It tends to overwhelm all other evidence (e.g., testimonial or documentary) and be immune to critical analysis. Why would this …

To Testify Or Not To Testify: A Comparative Analysis Of Australian And American Approaches To A Parent-Child Testimonial Exemption, Hillary Farber

Hillary B. Farber

Among many legal systems there are certain relationships that are deemed to possess such societal worth that despite the evidentiary value a witness may possess, he is immune from being compelled to testify against the other party in the relationship. In the United States, courts have recognized an evidentiary privilege for spouses, lawyers and their clients, psychotherapists and their patients. Surprisingly, the United States has not adopted a federal common law or statutory parent-child privilege. Among the civil law countries in Europe and Asia, a majority of countries prohibit parents and children from testifying against one another. Australia is the …

Mohammed Jawad And The Failure Of The Guantanamo Military Commissions, David J. Frakt

David J Frakt

In order to justify outrageous treatment of detainees at Guantanamo during the early years of the “Global War on Terror” it was necessary to portray the detainees as hardened terrorist criminals. But it was not enough to simply label them as such; the Bush Administration knew that in order to maintain popular support for their detention policies, they would have to convict a critical mass of the detainees in some sort of legal proceedings.

The problem for the Bush Administration was that few of the detainees were actually involved in any terrorist criminal activity. Fewer still had committed any offenses …

The Constitution Guarantees Doctor-Patient Confidentiality In Criminal Cases, David E. Clark

David E Clark

Admitting medical records against a patient in a criminal case violates the fifth amendment because a patient is compelled to tell her doctor inculpatory information. Issuing a search warrant for confidential doctor-patient records violates the right to privacy in the fourth amendment. Warden v Hayden (1967) left open an important exception allowing a constitutional doctor-patient privilege in criminal cases.

Finding The Error In Daubert, Mark G. Haug

mark g haug

This article proposes an alternative criterion to Daubert and its progeny—including the amended FRE 702 of 2000—for the admissibility of expert testimony. Relevant to our proposal is the theoretical and empirical difficulty of Daubert’s factor concerning the known or potential error rate. Lurking within this particular factor, however, is the key to a non-controversial criterion for admissibility that is relatively easy to implement. To support our proposal, we consider the error factor from a scientific viewpoint. Using the Daubert case, and a scientific sampling of cases relying upon Daubert for guidance, we endeavor to show how courts have struggled with …