Law Commons^™

The Trial Court's Gatekeeper Role Under Frye, Daubert, And Kumho: A Special Look At Children's Cases, John Eric Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf

Irene Scharf

The case alerted me to the continuing issue concerning the treatment of alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights in immigration court, with this article the result of research conducted relating thereto. Beyond reviewing the relevant views of the federal courts of appeals; the administrative tribunal that handles appeals of immigration court cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and even local immigration courts; I consider whether the jurisprudence has remained static since the Supreme Court's watershed opinion on the issue about twenty-five years ago. I also offer suggestions as to how to effectively, fairly, and efficiently resolve the issues raised …

Accounting For Federalism In State Courts - Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained Lawfully By Federal Agents, Robert M. Bloom, Hillary J. Massey

Robert Bloom

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court also has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades, for example by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether …

Crawford & Its Progeny In Texas & The Nation's Other State Supreme Courts, Dannye Holley

Dannye Holley

CRAWFORD & ITS PROGENY IN TEXAS & THE

NATION’S OTHER STATE SUPREME COURTS

This article is designed to track three major conceptual themes. First, the elusive pursuit of scholarship which engages both the practicing bar and academics. Second, how our federalism is shaped by the interaction of the “Supreme Courts”. Finally, identifying metrics upon which to base a principled assessment of whether a United States Supreme Court decision is a “watershed” decision.

The article documents that Crawford and its progeny have created a powerful convergence of the interests of academics and the practicing bar. It does so by making reference …

Evaluating Oral Histories: The Evidentiary Standard In Cases Involving The Repatriation Of Pre-Historic Human Remains, Sylvia St. Clair

Sylvia B. St. Clair

Ms. St. Clair explores the use of oral histories to prove cultural affiliation and examines how the laws of evidence must be adapted in order to accommodate this type of evidence. In cases involving the repatriation of Native American human remains, proving cultural affiliation becomes especially problematic when traditional evidence is scarce and tribal claimants rely on oral histories to prove affiliation. This type of evidence is subject to heavy skepticism, consistently challenged by science and technological advances, and examination of the court’s treatment of cases over the last decade has left confusion on the applicable standard. In face of …

Understanding The Law Of Evidence Through The Lens Of Signal-To-Noise, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

No abstract provided.

"Introduction" (Chapter 1) Of Stories About Science In Law: Literary And Historical Images Of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate 2011), David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

This is the introductory chapter of Stories About Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate, 2011), explaining that the book presents examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law. Challenging the view that law and science are completely different, I focus on stories that explore the relationship between law and science, and identify cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. In contrast to other studies on the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, the book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects-- law and …

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys - and this is what the proponents of a duty …

Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

Drawing on research into the use of experts in early 19th-century criminal trials, the image of mad alchemists in popular culture representations of science, and the distinction between empirical and contingent “interpretive repertoires” in the discourse of scientific controversies, this article explores the controversy over arsenic-detection technologies prior to the Marsh test. In addition to noting the predictable criticism of incompetent expertise in the service of law, this article highlights implied accusations of hubris and amorality on the part of over-confident experts, both in the early 19th-century and in today's crisis of forensic science.

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

Gary M. Shaw

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron

Rodger Citron

This piece provides the introduction for the Dreyfus affair. It gives a brief overview of the actual Dreyfus affair and outlines the articles in this volume.

Not For The Truth Of The Matter: Defendant's Hearsay And The Necessity Of Limiting Instructions In Psychological Defenses, Brian A. Ford

Brian A Ford

This paper presents a thorough discussion of the use of a defendant's hearsay statements to a psychological expert as the basis of the expert's opinion at trial, under California Law.

From Gridlock To Groundbreaking: Realizing Reliability In Forensic Science, Jessica D. Gabel

Jessica Gabel Cino

In 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a scathing report announcing that forensic science is broken and needs to be overhauled. Weaknesses have plagued forensic evidence for decades, and the resulting legal challenges have been hard fought but met with few victories. What we do know is a harsh truth: that faulty forensic science has contributed to the conviction of innocent people—and will continue to do so if the status quo persists.

In recent years, the reality of wrongful convictions has become mainstream through the work of the Innocence Project and other organizations. Out of the 305 DNA-based exonerations …

Modernizing Jury Instructions In The Age Of Social Media, David Aaronson, Sydney Patterson

David Aaronson

No abstract provided.

The Piranha Is As Deadly As The Shark: A Case For The Limitation On Deceptive Practices In Dna Collection, Brett A. Bauman

Brett A Bauman

Police deception tactics are utilized throughout the United States as a way to catch unsuspecting criminals. Although criticized in many respects, most deceptive police techniques are not only legal, but are actually encouraged. DNA collection and analysis is no exception—techniques are frequently used by law enforcement officers in an attempt to collect a suspect’s genetic specimen in the interest of solving crimes. While law enforcement officers typically have the best interests of society in mind, the current practices employed by officers to collect suspects’ DNA violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and …

Are People Probabilistically Challenged? Book Review Of Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast And Slow (2011), Alex Stein

Alex Stein

Daniel Kahneman’s recent book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is a must-read for any scholar and policymaker interested in behavioral economics. Thus far, behavioral economists did predominantly experimental work that uncovered discrete manifestations of people’s bounded rationality: representativeness, availability, anchoring, overoptimism, base-rate neglect, hindsight bias, loss aversion, and other misevaluations of probability and utility. This work has developed no causal explanations for these misevaluations. Kahneman’s book takes the discipline to a different level by developing an integrated theory of bounded rationality’s causes and characteristics. This theory holds that humans use two distinct modes of reasoning, intuitive (System 1) and deliberative (System …

Full Disclosure: Cognitive Science, Informants, And Search Warrant Scrutiny, Mary Bowman

Mary N. Bowman

Full Disclosure: Cognitive Science, Informants, and Search Warrant Scrutiny

By Mary Nicol Bowman

This article posits that cognitive biases play a significant role in the gap between the rhetoric regarding Fourth Amendment protection and actual practices regarding search warrant scrutiny, particularly for search warrants based on informants’ tips. Specifically, this article examines the ways in which implicit bias, tunnel vision, priming, and hindsight bias can affect search warrants. These biases can affect each stage of the search warrant process, including targeting decisions, the drafting process, the magistrate’s decision whether to grant the warrant, and post-search review by trial and appellate …

Defying Dna: Rethinking The Role Of The Jury In An Age Of Scientific Proof Of Innocence, Andrea L. Roth

Andrea L Roth

In 1946, public outrage erupted after a jury ordered Charlie Chaplin to support a child who, according to apparently definitive blood tests, was not his. Half a century later, juries have again defied apparently definitive evidence of innocence, finding criminal defendants guilty based on a confession or eyewitness notwithstanding exculpatory DNA test results. One might expect judges in such cases to direct an acquittal, on grounds that the evidence is legally insufficient because no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet few if any do. Instead, courts defer to juries when they form an actual belief in …

Cipa V. State Secrets: How A Few Mistakes Confused Two Important National Security Privileges, Elisa Poteat

Elisa Poteat

No abstract provided.

Opposing Mr. Big In Principle, David Milward

Dr. David Milward

No abstract provided.

Skating Too Close To The Edge: A Cautionary Tale For Tax Practitioners About The Hazards Of Waiver, Claudine Pease-Wingenter

Claudine Pease-Wingenter

The Federal Rules of Evidence defer to common law in establishing the rules of attorney-client privilege. As a general matter, such an approach creates a fairly uncertain legal landscape as each court articulates the baseline rules somewhat differently. The varied judicial applications of those differing rules can then exacerbate the uncertainty even more.

Unfortunately, in the area of tax law, the rules and their application are particularly uncertain because attorneys and accountants have overlapping responsibilities to clients and the courts have historically refused to recognize an accountant-client privilege. During my approximately eight years practicing corporate tax law, I was acutely …

Evidence, Probability, And The Burden Of Proof, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

This Article analyzes the probabilistic and epistemological underpinnings of the burden-of-proof doctrine. We show that this doctrine is best understood as instructing factfinders to determine which of the parties’ conflicting stories makes most sense in terms of coherence, consilience, causality, and evidential coverage. By applying this method, factfinders should try—and will often succeed—to establish the truth, rather than a statistical surrogate of the truth, while securing the appropriate allocation of the risk of error. Descriptively, we argue that this understanding of the doctrine—the “relative plausibility theory”—corresponds to our courts’ practice. Prescriptively, we argue that the relative-plausibility method is operationally superior …