Law Commons^™

Can You Provide Evidence Of Insufficient Evidence? The Precautionary Principle At The Wto, Elisa Vecchione

Elisa Vecchione

This paper aims to demonstrate that the WTO jurisprudence on science-related trade disputes has become entangled with a specific vision of science that has prevented any possible application of the precautionary principle. This situation is due to reasons of both legal procedures specific to the WTO dispute settlement system and the substantive nature of precautionary measures. Indeed, their foundation on “insufficient scientific evidence” dramatically complicates the question of the probative value of science for the purpose of legal adjudication and creates a seemingly contradictory situation, of which the Panel on the EC-Biotech case confirmed to be a victim: that of …

Where Did My Privilege Go? Congress And Its Discretion To Ignore The Attorney-Client Privilege, Don Berthiaume, Jeffrey Ansley

Don R Berthiaume

“The right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience or executive branch whimsy. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted... However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law.”[1] So said Senator Arlen Specter on February 13, 2009, just seven months before Congress chose to ignore the very privilege he lauded. Why then, if the right to counsel is as important as Senator Specter articulated, does Congress maintain …

Standing Mute At Arrest As Evidence Of Guilt: The 'Right To Silence' Under Attack, Frank R. Herrmann S.J., Brownlow M. Speer

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

It is commonly understood that an arrested person has a right to remain silent and that the government may not use his or her silence to prove guilt at trial. Three Circuit Courts of Appeal, however, reject this understanding. They allow the prosecution to use an arrested person's pre-Miranda silence as direct evidence of guilt. This article argues that those Circuits are wrong. The article, first, demonstrates the historical antiquity of the Common Law principle that a detained person has the right to stand mute. Though the right was limited by statutory incursion and in tension, at times, with the …

Finding Evidence On Facebook, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk, Andrew P. Sherrod

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2010through June 2011 addressing civil procedure topics; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2011 session that relates to civil practice.

A Pleading Problem: Seventh Circuit Decision In Swanson V. Citibank Illustrates The Unstable State Of Federal Pleading Standards In The Post-Iqbal Era, Trisha Chokshi

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Historically, courts have been a place where individuals could obtain justice and relief for their grievances. Ordinary people have used courts to desegregate schools, protect the environment, punish corporate misconduct, and preserve fundamental liberties. Citizen access to federal courts, however, has become much more difficult in recent years in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly in 2001 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009, which raised the pleading standard a plaintiff must satisfy before her case can go to court. In civil litigation, a pleading serves as an individual’s key to the courthouse door. The …

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

Robert M. 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 …

Weaving Functional Brain Imaging Into The Tapestry Of Evidence: A Case For Functional Neuroimaging In Federal Criminal Courts, Adam Teitcher

Fordham Law Review

Recent advances in brain imaging technologies allow researchers to "peer inside" a defendant's brain. Although functional neuroimaging evidence is frequently used in civil litigation, federal courts have been hesitant to admit it into evidence in criminal trials. Scholars and commentators alike continue to debate the merits, detriments, and general admissibility of functional neuroimaging evidence in the criminal context. Meanwhile, federal judges repeatedly admit various forms of forensic science into evidence without evaluating them under the appropriate admissibility standards. This Note argues that this has created a double standard for evidence admissibility. Functional neuroimaging evidence may, in fact, be more scientifically …

Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Rodriguez, Michael J. Puma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judging Genes: Implications Of The Second Generation Of Genetic Tests In The Courtroom, Diane E. Hoffmann, Karen H. Rothenberg

Diane Hoffmann

The use of DNA tests for identification has revolutionized court proceedings in criminal and paternity cases. Now, requests by litigants to admit or compel a second generation of genetic tests – tests to confirm or predict genetic diseases and conditions – threaten to affect judicial decision-making in many more contexts. Unlike DNA tests for identification, these second generation tests may provide highly personal health and behavioral information about individuals and their relatives and will pose new challenges for trial court judges. This article reports on an original empirical study of how judges analyze these requests and uses the study results …

More On The Impeachment Of Criminal Defendants, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

More On The Future Of Present Sense Impressions, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Diagnosing Liability : The Legal History Of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the origins of the unique relationship between the psychiatric diagnosis Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the law and considers the implications of that relationship for contemporary uses of the diagnosis in legal settings. PTSD stands apart from all other diagnoses in psychiatry 's standard classification system, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM} , and is the focus of significant controversy within psychiatry, because its diagnostic criteria require a determination of causation. By diagnosing a person with PTSD, a clinician necessarily assigns responsibility to a specific event or agent for causing the person 's symptoms, …

Plea Bargaining, Discovery, And The Intractable Problem Of Impeachment Disclosures, R. Michael Cassidy

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several recent high-profile cases have illustrated flaws with the government's discovery practices in criminal cases and have put prosecutors across the country on the defensive about their compliance with disclosure obligations. The conviction of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens on ethics charges was set aside after it was revealed that federal prosecutors withheld notes of an interview with a key government witness; one member of the Stevens prosecution team who was under investigation for contempt subsequently committed suicide. The Supreme Court remanded a double murder case from Tennessee for potential resentencing after it was revealed that state prosecutors had withheld …

The Usefulness Of . . . Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Evidentiary Significance Of “Tweets,” Texts And Status Updates (Starring Justin Bieber), Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Gone But Not Forgotten: When Privacy, Policy And Privilege Collide, Louise L. Hill

Louise L Hill

No abstract provided.

Does 'Sorry' Incriminate? Evidence, Harm And The Meaning Of Apologies, Jeffrey S. Helmreich

Jeffrey S. Helmreich

Apology has proven a dramatically effective means of resolving conflict and preventing litigation. Still, many injurers, particularly physicians, withhold apologies because they have long been used as evidence of liability. Recently, a majority of states in the U.S. have passed “Apology Laws” designed to lift this disincentive, by shielding apologies from evidentiary use. However, most of the new laws protect only expressions of benevolence and sympathy (such as “I feel bad about what happened to you”). They exclude full apologies, which express regret, remorse or self-criticism (“I should have prevented it,” for example). The state measures thereby reinforce a prevailing …

Rule 609 And The Frustratingly Unkillable Five-Factor Mahone Framework, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Unpredictable And Inconsistent: Nevada's Expert Witness Standard After Higgs V. State, Ryan A. Henry

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Safety Doctrine To The Criminal Justice System, Boaz Sangero, Mordechai Halpert

Prof. Boaz Sangero

Criminal law, unlike other risk-creating fields, currently lacks any modern safety doctrine. In light of the proven phenomenon of wrongful convictions and the severe harm it causes to both those wrongly convicted and society, this Essay focuses on the necessary preliminary stages in developing a safety doctrine for the criminal justice system. Under our conception, criminal law is a "safety-critical system": it deals with matters of life and death. We view false conviction to be a type of accident, similarly to a crash of a fighter airplane. This comparison is not only metaphorical, but quite literal when the damage is …

“Bull” Coming From The States: Why The U.S. Supreme Court Should Use Williams V. Illinois To Close One Of Bullcoming’S Confrontation Clause Loopholes, Tara Klimek Price

Tara Price

Imagine that you are selected as a juror in a trial where the defendant is accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol. You listen to the police officer who testifies that he observed the defendant and believed him to be intoxicated. You hear about how after obtaining a warrant, the officer took the defendant to the emergency room for a blood-alcohol test. The police officer finishes his testimony, and the next witness will testify about the results of the defendant’s blood-alcohol test.

But before the witness can testify, defense counsel objects. Apparently, this is not the laboratory analyst …

Wild Dreamers: Meditation On The Admissibility Of Dream Talk, Louise Harmon

Louise Harmon

No abstract provided.

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

Working Paper Series

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

Working Paper Series

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 to vet …

A Defense Attorney’S Guide To Confrontation After Michigan V. Bryant, Kathryn K. Polonsky

Kathryn K Polonsky

In 1603, the Crown charged Sir Walter Raleigh with high treason in part for plotting to murder King James I. In preparing for trial, Lord Cobham, Raleigh’s alleged co-conspirator, was interrogated and signed a sworn confession. During trial, the King used the Crown-procured ex parte testimony of Cobham against Raleigh. Raleigh demanded Cobham be brought before the court so Raleigh might interrogate him “face to face.” Raleigh was sure Cobham would prove his innocence. After all, Cobham had written a letter stating his charges against Raleigh contained no truth.

The Judges refused to allow Raleigh the use of Cobham’s exonerating …

Admissibility Of Investigatory Reports In § 1983 Civil Rights Actions - A User's Manual, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages--Developments In Section 1983 Cases, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

The Competing Claims Of Canon And Civil Law To Accessing Diocesan Secret Archives, Stephen Braunlich

Stephen Braunlich

The fallout from Catholic clerics’ sexual abuse of children has continued, despite the best efforts of bishops to respond effectively, and has led to ongoing criminal and civil actions. Central to the protracted fights have been questions of compelled disclosure of diocesan secret archives: What records did the Church keep? Can they be discovered? Does the First Amendment provide protection? What is the role of privilege? Does the public have a right to everyman’s evidence, or is some protected because it comes from a religious organization? I ultimately conclude that while the rules of discovery and evidence do not protect …

Death To Dying Declarations! The Case For Killing A Hearsay Exception, Samuel T. Bernier

Samuel T Bernier

No abstract provided.