Law Commons^™

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 …

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... …

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 …

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 …

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.

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 …

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 …

Protecting “Any Child:” The Use Of The Confidential Marital Communications Privilege In Child Molestation Cases, Naomi Goodno

Naomi Harlin Goodno

Imagine a grandmother who wants to testify in a criminal trial that her husband confessed to her that he molested their two-year old grandson, but she is prevented from doing so. This is a true example of how a defendant can invoke the confidential martial communications privilege. Federal courts and half of the state legislatures have created exceptions to the confidential martial communications privilege in narrow situations. If a defendant has committed a crime against “the child of either” spouse, or against a “child residing in the home,” then the defendant cannot bar testimony based on the confidential marital communications …

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, 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 their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

An Unsettling Outcome: Why The Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong To Ban All Settlement Evidence In Saleeby V. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009), Michael L. Seigel, Robert J. Hauser, Allison D. Sirica

Michael L Seigel

It is rare that a court as sophisticated as the Florida Supreme Court casually makes a fundamental mistake in an important area of the law. Unfortunately, Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009), represents one of these unusual instances. The Court was faced with a simple question: may evidence pertaining to a prior settlement be offered at trial when it is relevant to something other than liability or the invalidity or amount of the pending claim. The universal answer under both federal law and the law of other states is yes, as long as the …

The Probative Function Of Punishment: Criminal Sanctions In The Defense Of The Innocent, Ehud Guttel

Ehud Guttel

Under the formal procedural rules, factfinders are required to apply a uniform standard of proof in all criminal cases. Experimental studies as well as real world examples indicate, however, that factfinders often adjust the evidentiary threshold for conviction in accordance with the severity of the applicable sanction. All things being equal, the higher the sanction, the higher the standard of proof factfinders will apply in order to convict. Building on this insight, this Article introduces a new paradigm for criminal punishments—a paradigm that focuses on designing penalties that will reduce the risk of unsubstantiated convictions. By setting mandatory penalties of …

Police “Science” In The Interrogation Room: Seventy Years Of Pseudo-Psychological Interrogation Methods To Obtain Inadmissible Confessions, Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

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.