Law Commons^™

Brain Scans As Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, And Lessons, Owen D. Jones, Francis X. Shen

Owen Jones

This contribution to the Brain Sciences in the Courtroom Symposium identifies and discusses issues important to admissibility determinations when courts confront brain-scan evidence. Through the vehicle of the landmark 2010 federal criminal trial U.S. v. Semrau (which considered, for the first time, the admissibility of brain scans for lie detection purposes) this article highlights critical evidentiary issues involving: 1) experimental design; 2) ecological and external validity; 3) subject compliance with researcher instructions; 4) false positives; and 5) drawing inferences about individuals from group data. The article’s lessons are broadly applicable to the new wave of neurolaw cases now being seen …

Special Court For Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice?, Charles Chernor Jalloh

Charles C. Jalloh

The Sierra Leone war, which lasted between 1991 and 2002, gained notoriety around the world for “blood" or "conflict" diamonds and some of the worst atrocities ever perpetrated against civilians in a modern conflict. On January 16, 2002, the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone signed an historic agreement to establish the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). In setting up a new type of ad hoc criminal tribunal, the parties sought to achieve two key objectives. First, to dispense credible justice by enabling the prosecution of those bearing greatest responsibility for the wartime atrocities based on international …

International Decision, International Criminal Court, Judgment On The Appeal Of The Republic Of Kenya Against Pre-Trial Chamber Decision Denying Inadmissibility Of The Kenya Situation, Charles Chernor Jalloh

Charles C. Jalloh

A fundamental pillar of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is Article 17, which enshrines the complementarity principle – the idea that ICC jurisdiction will only be triggered when states fail to act to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes within their national courts or in circumstances where they prove unwilling and or unable to do so. The problem is that, as shown in this case report in the American Journal of International Law on the first ICC Appeals Chamber ruling regarding a state party’s objection to the court’s assertion of jurisdiction over its nationals, …

Bill Cosby, The Lustful Disposition Exception, And The Doctrine Of Chances, Wesley Oliver

Wesley M Oliver

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

Sheri Lynn Johnson

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb

Sherry Colb

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Effect Of Bribery In International Commercial Arbitration, Harshad Pathak, Pratyush Panjwani, Divya Srinivasan, Punya Varma

Harshad Pathak

The issue of bribery in international commercial arbitration throws up complex issues throughout the proceedings. The given paper addresses the three procedural concerns associated with claims tainted by bribery – arbitrability, admissibility, and investigative powers of arbitral tribunal. Regarding arbitrability, it is amply clear that claims tainted by bribery are no longer non-arbitrable in nature. However, an arbitral tribunal ought to proceed to the merits of the dispute only in the circumstance that such claims are found to be admissible before the tribunal. With respect to admissibility of such claims, the authors suggest that if bribery is shown to exist, …

Beyond Resqnet: Clarifying The Standard For The Use Of Patent Settlements, Tejas N. Narechania, Jackson Taylor Kirklin

Tejas N. Narechania

Analysis Of Videotape Evidence In Police Misconduct Cases, Martin A. Schwartz, Jessica Silbey, Jack Ryan, Gail Donoghue

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Uprooting The Cell-Plant: Comparing United States And Canadian Constitutional Approaches To Surreptitious Interrogations In The Detention Context, Amar Khoday

Dr. Amar Khoday

No abstract provided.

“El Tribunal General De La Ue Clarifica El Concepto De Actos Impugnables Por Los Particulares Según El Artículo 263(4) Tfue: La Sentencia Microban”, Luis González Vaqué

Luis González Vaqué

El Tribunal General (Sala Cuarta ampliada) decidió anular la Decisión 2010/169/UE de la Comisión, de 19 de marzo de 2010, relativa a la no inclusión del 2,4,4’-tricloro-2’-hidroxidifenil éter en la lista de la Unión de los aditivos que pueden utilizarse en la fabricación de materiales y objetos plásticos destinados a entrar en contacto con productos alimenticios con arreglo a la Directiva 2002/72/CE. Dicho Tribunal estimó que la Comisión había infringido el Reglamento nº 1935/2004 y la Directiva 2002/72 al adoptar una decisión de no incluir un aditivo basándose exclusivamente en la retirada de la solicitud inicial de inclusión del triclosán …

An Unsettling Development: The Use Of Settlement Related Evidence For Damages Determinations In Patent Litigation, Tejas N. Narechania, J. Taylor Kirklin

Tejas N. Narechania

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

Louise Harmon

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael E Lewyn

Michael E Lewyn

Although poliitical activity is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, evidence of such activity is at times admissible to prove other antitrust violations. Such evidence, if admissible, could be used to prove anticompetitive intent, or as a 'plus factor' to prove conspiracy where the only other evidence of conspiracy is parallel conduct. However, such evidence is most likely to be admitted where it is superfluous.