Law Commons^™

Summary Of Reno Newspapers V. Gibbons, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 23, Daniel M. Ryan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers whether after a public records lawsuit commences, when a party requests records from a state entity, and that state entity withholds the requested records, is the requesting party entitled to a log containing a factual description of each withheld record and a legal basis for nondisclosure. Also, the Court considers what the state entity withholding records is required to provide to the requesting party in prelitigation situations.

Revisiting The Similar Fact Rule In Singapore: Public Prosecutor V. Mas Swan Bin Adnan And Another, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The similar fact rule in Singapore—as with the law on any evidence law doctrine that can be found in both our Evidence Act and the common law—has required clarification for some time. This note, which discusses the latest local decision on the similar fact rule, considers if that decision is compatible with the Evidence Act and the various conceptualisations underlying the doctrine.

Finding Evidence On Facebook, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus [2010] SGHC 7; Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v PP [2011] SGCA 52. Overview of the case: In PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus, the accused was charged with murder. He and the deceased had been in a tumultuous relationship, and the main evidence that connected the deceased’s death to the accused, apart from the fact that her body was found in the construction site that the accused worked at, was that DNA taken from her rectum tested positive for semen that matched his DNA.

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.

Hiring Teams, Firms, And Lawyers: Evidence Of The Evolving Relationship In The Corporate Legal Market, Michele M. Destefano, John C. Coates, Ashish Nanda, David B. Wilkins

Articles

How are relationships between corporate clients and law firms evolving? Drawing on interview and survey data from 166 chief legal officers of S&P 500 companies from 2006-2007, we find that-contrary to standard depictions of corporate client-provider relationships-(1) large companies have relationships with ten to twenty preferred providers; (2) these relationships continue to be enduring, and (3) clients focus not only on law firm platforms and lead partners, but also on teams and departments within preferred providers, allocating work to these subunits at rival firms over time and following "star" lawyers, especially if they move as part of a team. The …

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.

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

Popular Media

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 …

Summary Of Williams V. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 45, Ryan Johnson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Two consolidated petitions for writs of mandamus dealing with the admission of evidence and expert medical testimony.

Choosing An Expert Witness In Construction Cases, Robert Greenstreet

Architecture Faculty Articles

This article outlines a guide for attorneys to reach out to potential expert witnesses. By asking certain questions and requesting specific information, they can eliminate less appropriate individuals and become reasonably assured that the individuals finally selected will be effective players in the presentation of each case.

Password Protected? Can A Password Save Your Cell Phone From A Search Incident To Arrest?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Over the last few years, dozens of courts have authorized police to conduct warrantless searches of cell phones when arresting individuals. Under the “search incident to arrest” doctrine, police are free to search text messages, call histories, photos, voicemails, and a host of other data if they arrest an individual and remove a cell phone from his pocket. Given that courts have offered little protection against cell-phone searches, this Article explores whether individuals can protect themselves by password protecting their phones. The Article concludes, unfortunately, that password protecting a cell phone offers minimal legal protection when an individual is lawfully …

Fortuity And Forensic Familial Identification, Natalie Ram

All Faculty Scholarship

On July 7, 2010, Los Angeles police announced the arrest of a suspect in the Grim Sleeper murders, so called because of a decade-long hiatus in killings. The break in the case came when California searched its state DNA database for a genetic profile similar, but not identical, to the killer’s. DNA is inherited in specific and predictable ways, so a source-excluding partial match might indicate that a close genetic relative of the matching offender was the Grim Sleeper. California’s apparent success in this case has intensified interest in policymaking for source-excluding partial matching. To date, however, little information about …

The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the prelitigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin-of the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC2 e-discovery casespenned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches …

Why Cops Lie, Peter Keane

Publications

Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.

A Common Law View Of Causation, Science And Statistical Evidence In The Courtroom, Basil C. Bitas

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In March 2010, the Australian High Court in Amaca Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5 (“Amaca”) moved assertively to clarify the approach of the Australian courts to causation in cases of lung disease involving multiple pathogens. The court demonstrated sensitivity to both the scientific and legal inquiries while reaffirming the obligation of plaintiffs to prove causation based on the balance of probabilities. In examining the plaintiff’s statistical evidence, the court established important guideposts regarding the proper use and interpretation of epidemiology in the courtroom, highlighting both the relevance and limits of such proof regarding causation and the satisfaction of the …

Ninth Circuit Strikes Out On Hearsay, Peter Keane

Publications

The recent Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion, United States v. Barry Bonds , is a murky distortion of an important Federal Rule of Evidence. Quite apart from any celebrity status about a decision regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the former Giants' slugger, the ruling significantly affects the admissibility of evidence in the federal courts in an unfortunate and erroneous way.

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

Judicial Gatekeeping And The Seventh Amendment: How Daubert Infringes Upon The Constitutional Right To A Civil Jury Trial, Brandon L. Boxler

W&M Law Student Publications

This Article begins by reviewing the history, purpose, and function of the Seventh Amendment within the American constitutional system. It then discusses the Supreme Court‘s analytical framework for preserving the fundamental features of the right to a civil jury trial while simultaneously permitting rational legal development of the jury system. Next, the Article provides a brief overview of the Court‘s Daubert jurisprudence, and argues that the creation of judicial gatekeeping has caused an institutional shift of adjudicatory authority away from juries and into the hands of judges in violation of the Seventh Amendment. The Article concludes by suggesting three legal …

She Blinded Me With Science: Wrongful Convictions And The "Reverse Csi-Effect", Mark A. Godsey, Marie Alou

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Prosecutors in the United States are often heard to complain these days of the "CSI-effect."' When they make this complaint, they mean that the popularity of television shows like CSI has made it unduly difficult for them to obtain convictions of guilty defendants. Jurors today have become spoiled as a result of the proliferation of these "high-tech" forensic shows, and now unrealistically expect conclusive scientific proof of guilt before they will convict. The unfortunate result is that guilty defendants are acquitted because of a lack of forensic evidence in cases where, in reality, no such forensic evidence was possible or …

Foreign Law As Legislative Fact In Constitutional Cases, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Do we really need another law review article about foreign law in constitutional interpretation? In fact, we do. In the vast literature on the subject, a fundamental point has received scant attention. In the recent rulings that have stoked the present controversy, the Supreme Court has employed foreign law not as law, but rather merely as evidence of a legislative fact made relevant by domestic constitutional law. Commentators, however, have largely directed their attention to the merits of a genuine constitutional comparativism in which foreign law serves as a model for the creation of domestic constitutional doctrine. Many commentators have …

Simplifying Discovery And Production: Using Easy Frameworks To Evaluate The 2009 Term Of Cases, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Economic Analysis Of Fact Witness Payment, Eugene Kontorovich, Ezra Friedman

Faculty Working Papers

In this paper we discuss the disparate treatment of perceptual (''fact'') witnesses and expert witnesses in the legal system. We highlight the distinction between the perceptual act of witnessing and the act of testifying, and argue that although there might be good reasons to regulate payments to fact witnesses, the customary prohibition on paying them for their services is not justified by reference to economic theory. We propose considering a court mediated system for compensating fact witnesses so as to encourage witnessing of legally important events.We construct a simple model of witness incentives, and simulate the effects of several possible …

The Need For A Research Culture In The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan Koehler, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Simon A. Cole, Barry A.J. Fisher, Itiel E. Dror, Max Houck, Kieth Inman, David H. Kaye, Glenn Langenburg, D. Michel Risinger, Norah Rudin, Jay Siegel

Faculty Working Papers

The methods, techniques, and reliability of the forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines in particular, have faced significant scrutiny in recent years. Critics have attacked the scientific basis for the assumptions and claims made by forensic scientists both in and out of the courtroom. Defenders have emphasized courts' long-standing acceptance of forensic science evidence, the relative dearth of known errors, and the skill and experience of practitioners. This Article reflects an effort made by a diverse group of participants in these debates, including law professors, academics from several disciplines, and practicing forensic scientists, to find and explore …

Narrative Implications Of Evidentiary Rules, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

Advocates are increasingly conscious of courtroom disputes as forms of story-battles, in which the parties present competing narratives. But the rules of evidence -- determining which facts can be incorporated into the presentation of the parties' stories -- can also often best be understood from a narrative point of view. This paper examines narrative features underlying evidentiary rules dealing with leading questions, "speaking objections," and hearsay.

E-Discovery's Threat To Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 For The Digital Age, Robert M. Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger, Andrea Defield

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even though they were amended in 2006 specifically to address the costs and scale of ediscovery, not only fail to contain the cost or scope of discovery, but, in fact, encourage expensive litigation ancillary to the merits of civil litigants' cases. This Article proposes that the solution to this dilemma is to eliminate the presumption that the producing party should pay for the cost of discovery. This rule should be abandoned in favor of a rule that would equally distribute the costs of discovery between the requesting and producing parties.

Rule 801(D)'S Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory And A Suggested Amendment, Sam Stonefield

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines Rule 801(d)’s oxymoronic treatment of admissions and prior statements as “not hearsay.” This “not hearsay” label is inaccurate – the evidence is hearsay, as defined in Rule 801(c) – and is inconsistent with the analytically important and well-established use of the term not hearsay to describe evidence that is actually not hearsay.

The Article tells the story of how the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence ended up with such a confused and confusing label and proposes an amendment that would classify admissions and prior statements as hearsay exceptions and place each in a new, separate, …