Law Commons^™

Stepping Out Of The Vehicle: The Potential Of Arizona V. Gant To End Automatic Searches Incident To Arrest Beyond The Vehicular Context , Angad Singh

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coconspirators, “Coventurers,” And The Exception Swallowing The Hearsay Rule, Ben L. Trachtenberg

Faculty Publications

In recent years, prosecutors - sometimes with the blessing of courts - have argued that when proving the existence of a “conspiracy” to justify admission of evidence under the Coconspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule, they need show only that the declarant and the defendant were “coventurers” with a common purpose, not coconspirators with an illegal purpose. Indeed, government briefs and court decisions specifically disclaim the need to show any wrongful goal whatsoever. This Article contends that such a reading of the Exception is mistaken and undesirable. Conducted for this article, a survey of thousands of court decisions, including the …

Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Outsourcing Investigations, Elena Baylis

Articles

This article addresses the International Criminal Court’s reliance on third-party investigations in the absence of its own international police force. In addition to cooperation from sometimes reluctant states, the ICC and other international criminal tribunals have come to rely on a network of NGOs and UN entities focused on postconflict justice work to provide critical evidence. This reliance raised problems in the ICC Office of the Prosecutor's first case against Thomas Lubanga. The use of third-party evidence raises questions regarding confidentiality and disclosure, the integrity of the evidence-gathering process, and the equality of arms between the prosecution and the defense. …

Sex, Threats, And Absent Victims: The Lessons Of Regina V. Bedingfield For Modern Confrontation And Domestic Violence Cases, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In 2004, Crawford v. Washington, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, revolutionized the law of confrontation by requiring that, aside from two discrete exceptions, all testimonial statements (those made with the expectation that they will serve to prosecute the accused) be subject to cross-examination. This new interpretation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause has profoundly affected domestic violence cases, making it much harder to prosecute them successfully.

Although Justice Scalia’s approach to confrontation is new, it is strikingly similar to the analysis in Regina v. Bedingfield, a notorious English murder case, which excluded from the evidence an alleged statement by the …

Scientific Evidence In Criminal Prosecutions - A Retrospective, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Reduction Of Regulatory Uncertainty: Evidence From Transfer Pricing Policy, Andrew B. Whitford

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Blind Expertise, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

The United States spends many billions of dollars on its system of civil litigation, and expert witnesses appear in a huge portion of cases. Yet litigants select and retain expert witnesses in ways that create the appearance of biased hired guns on both sides of every case, thereby depriving factfinders of a clear view of the facts. As a result, factfinders too often arrive at the wrong conclusions, thus undermining the deterrence and compensation functions of litigation. Court-appointment of experts has been widely proposed as a solution, yet it raises legitimate concerns about accuracy and has failed to gain traction …

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

District Attorney’S Office For The Third Judicial District V. Osborne: Leaving Prisoners’ Access To Dna Evidence In Limbo, Alexandra Millard

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Philosophy Of Science: A Deconstruction- And A Reconstruction, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Adverse Inference About Adverse Inferences: Restructuring Juridical Roles For Responding To Evidence Tampering By Parties To Litigation, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

For at least two centuries, Anglo-American courts have responded to a party's evidence tampering by allowing the opponent to argue to jurors that they should draw an adverse inference against the offending party in deciding the merits of the case. This Article argues that the use of such inferences, and invitations to draw them, should be radically curtailed, not only because of the ambiguities and risks of prejudice that such inferences entail, but more importantly because they reflect and contribute to a confusion of roles in which the jury is enlisted to participate in the management of the pre-trial conduct …

No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, Or, The Voir Dire In Dallas County, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Voir dire is Law French for “to speak the truth.” In the United States and a few other common-law countries that still use juries, the term describes the process of selecting jurors who will hear the evidence presented at trial, render a verdict, and sometimes determine punishment. The translation suggests a search for jurors who can render a fair and impartial verdict. Attorneys try to discover and remove jurors who seem unable or unlikely to speak the truth, such as those who nurture irrational prejudices or harbor private grievances.

In most federal courts, the judge is the primary conduit for …

Offence Definitions, Conclusive Presumptions, And Slot Machines, Michael Plaxton

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Canadian evidence scholars frequently claim that conclusive presumptions are nothing more than substantive offence definitions. This position reflects a persistent confusion, not about the function of legal presumptions in the law of evidence, but about the function of offence definitions beyond the law of evidence. Offence definitions, unlike conclusive presumptions, serve the normative function of defining wrongful conduct for citizens. This commentary argues that the language of conclusive presumptions allows us to distinguish the gravamen of a criminal offence from a means of facilitating proof of that wrong. It is, to that extent, worth preserving the distinction between conclusive presumptions …

The Danger To Confidential Communications In The Mismatch Between The Fourth Amendment's "Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy" And The Confidentiality Of Evidentiary Privileges, Robert P. Mosteller, Kenneth S. Broun

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Inadvertent Disclosure: The Lingering Need To Revise Professional Conduct Rules, Paula Schaefer

Scholarly Works

In recent years, the American Bar Association and state bars have deferred to lawmakers to create a legal solution to the problems associated with inadvertent disclosure. When Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was enacted in September 2008, lawmakers and commentators praised the new rule as a remedy to costly pre-production privilege review and as an answer to the uncertainties of waiver law.

This article examines the numerous inadvertent disclosure issues that remain unanswered for litigators and transactional attorneys, and considers the new problems created by Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2009, transactional attorneys have no practical means to obtain …

Scientific Evidence As Foreign Law, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Most contemporary debates about scientific evidence focus on admissibility under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. That bias is quite understandable-after all, it is the framework imposed by the United States Supreme Court. Daubert, however, rests on a fundamental assumption: that courts should treat scientific facts like any other adjudicative facts ultimately left to the jury. Perhaps the involvement of specialized knowledge requires judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure some basic level of reliability, but under Daubert, scientific facts are still just facts. As I will argue, scientific facts fit awkwardly into the conventional framework for conceptualizing and …

Do You Swear To Tell The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth Against Your Child?, Hillary B. Farber

Hillary B. Farber

Currently in the United States forty-five states and the federal system do not recognize an evidentiary parent-child privilege. The United States Supreme Court has never granted certiorari in a case involving recognition of a parent-child privilege. For many, it is a revelation to learn that the government can compel testimony about communications and observations between parents and their children. A rights-based argument in favor of a parent-child privilege has not been articulated before in legal scholarship. This paper singles out one specific context, the prosecution of juveniles, and argues that such a privilege is essential in order to ensure children …

Will History Be Servitude?: The Nas Report On Forensic Science And The Rule Of The Judiciary, Jane Moriarty

Jane Campbell Moriarty

For several decades, the prosecution and its witnesses have maintained that despite little research and virtually no standards, they can match a fingerprint, handwriting, bullet and bullet cartridge, hair, dental imprint, footprint, tire track, or even a lip print to its unique source (collectively, “individualization evidence”). Not only can they match it, they claim, they can do so often without any error rate. In the last few decades, with the help of lawyers and academics, litigants have challenged the underlying reliability of individualization evidence. Scholars in various disciplines have written about the startling state of individualization evidence, including its lack …

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

Upjohn Warnings, The Attorney-Client Privilege, And Principles Of Lawyer Ethics: Achieving Harmony, Grace M. Giesel

Grace M. Giesel

Individuals who are related to an entity such as a corporation sometimes claim that when they communicated with the entity lawyer, they honestly and reasonably believed that the lawyer represented them. Thus, they claim that the attorney-client privilege applies and protects their statements from disclosure even when the entity has waived its privilege with regard to the communications. Many courts have given privilege claims by entity individuals harsh treatment. These courts, in the interest of protecting the entity, have required individuals to make proofs beyond that required by the traditional definition of the attorney-client privilege. In addition, these courts have …

Evidentiary Issues In The New York City Housing Court, Gerald Lebovits

Hon. Gerald Lebovits

“Intelligence” Searches And Purpose: A Significant Mismatch Between Constitutional Criminal Procedure And The Law Of Intelligence-Gathering, Robert C. Power

Robert C. Power

No abstract provided.