Law Commons^™

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

1. Objections
2. Relevancy
3. Privilege
4. Witnesses
5. Opinion Testimony
6. Hearsay
7. Authentication

Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the …

Conditional Probative Value And The Reconstruction Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dale A. Nance

Michigan Law Review

In a recent article, Richard Friedman articulates a modified and generalized version of the doctrine of conditional relevance, which he calls "conditional probative value." This version comes in response to a substantial body of academic criticism of the traditional doctrine. As one of the critics to whom Professor Friedman responds, I offer this reply with two purposes in mind: (1) to clarify the relationship between Friedman's analysis and my earlier reinterpretation of the conditional relevance doctrine; and (2) to address Friedman's specific proposals with regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence. I conclude that Friedman's articulation helps clarify the logic …

Dna Profiling In North Carolina, James Morgan

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, Charles W. Ehrhardt, Stephanie J. Young

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Presumption Of Innocence Imperiled: The New Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 And The Use Of Other Sexual-Offense Evidence In Washington, Jeffrey G. Pickett

Washington Law Review

The U.S. Congress has provisionally enacted three new federal rules of evidence (FRE). In cases of sexual assault or child molestation, FRE 413-415 allow the use, for any relevant purpose, of sexual assault or child molestation evidence not charged in the indictment or information. The new rules would operate in contravention of the traditional prohibition against using evidence of other misconduct for the purpose of proving that the defendant acted in conformity with a particular character trait on the occasion in question. This Comment surveys the arguments for and against the proposed changes. It concludes that Washington should not elect …

The Admissibiity Of Inculpatory Statements In Washington Under The Rule For Declarations Against Interest After Williamson V. United States, Julianna Gortner

Washington Law Review

Washington courts hold that where a statement by an unavailable declarant, offered in the trial of a third party inculpated by the statement, is predominantly disserving to the declarant's penal interest, the statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for declarations against interest. Federal courts have split on the admissibility of such declarations, with some courts holding that any non-disserving portions must be severed and excluded. In Williamson v. United States, the United States Supreme Court narrowed the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) on declarations against interest and held that only the individual portions of such statements that …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

In recent past evidence surveys, the author has suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that the Eleventh Circuit has markedly decreased its level of scrutiny of district court evidentiary decisions. It appears that in most cases, the Eleventh Circuit is willing to defer broadly to the discretion afforded district judges in evidentiary rulings. As a result, the number of Eleventh Circuit decisions in which evidentiary issues played a predominant part has decreased. Decisions rendered by the Eleventh Circuit during the current survey period suggest that the court is allocating its resources to evidentiary issues in which appellate guidance is broadly needed rather than …

Hewitt V. Kalish: Qualifying As An "Expert Competent To Testify" Under O.C.G.A Section 9-11-9.1, Richard T. Hills

Mercer Law Review

In Hewett v. Kalish, plaintiff, Hewett, sued Kalish, a podiatrist, for the negligent treatment of her tarsal tunnel syndrome condition. As required by Official Code of Georgia Annotated section 9-11-9.1, plaintiff filed with her complaint the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Alan D. Davis. The affidavit set forth Dr. Davis' professional credentials, his hospital affiliations, and his curriculum vitae. The relevant portion of the affidavit provided:

I am... competent to testify as an expert on behalf of [plaintiff] in an action for professional malpractice arising out of the diagnosis, care and treatment of [plaintiff] from January 1988 through …

Is The Doctor Hostile--Obstructive Impairments And The Hostility Rule In Federal Black Lung Claims, Timothy F. Cogan

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Six Step Analysis Of Other Purposes Evidence Pursuant To Rule 404(B) Of The North Carolina Rules Of Evidence, T. M. Ringer Jr.

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Abandoning New York's "General Acceptance" Requirement: Redesigning Proposed Rule Of Evidence 702(B) After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stuart J. Graham

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bitter Battles: The Use Of Psychological Evaluations In Child Custody Disputes In West Virginia, Alison Richey Mcburney

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'

The Advocate's Conflicting Obligations Vis-A.-Vis Adverse Medical Evidence In Social Security Proceedings, Robert E. Rains

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, And The Law Of Evidence , Eileen A. Scallen

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Simplifying The Law In Medical Malpractice: The Use Of Practice Guidelines As The Standard Of Care In Medical Malpractice Litigation, Sam A. Mcconkey Iv

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward Uniform Application Of A Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Catherine M. Baytion

Washington Law Review

In federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 501 governs all privileges, including the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Unlike many state statutes that explicitly recognize the psychotherapist-patient privilege and define its scope through exceptions, Rule 501 merely directs courts to use their reason and experience to interpret common law principles. Under this vague standard, the federal circuits lack uniformity in their treatment of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. This Comment suggests that Congress should explicitly recognize the privilege and define its scope through exceptions. To support this conclusion, this Comment discusses the justifications for recognizing a psychotherapist-patient privilege, uses the paradigm of formal versus nonformal …

Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.

The Meaning Of "Facts Or Data" In Federal Rule Of Evidence 703: The Significance Of The Supreme Court's Decision To Rely On Federal Rule 702 In Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Edward J. Imwinkelried

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Maryland Rules Of Evidence - The New Maryland Rules Of Evidence: Survey, Analysis And Critique, Alan D. Hornstein

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Codifying The Rule On Expert Testimony: Why Traditional Analysis Should Be Generally Acceptable, Kevin M. Carroll

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Residual Hearsay Exceptions: A New Opening?, Jeffrey E. Greene

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is A "Crime Relevant To Credibility"?, James A. Protin

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

General Evidentiary Objections Still Valid In Maryland, Dinah S. Leventhal

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be …

The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that Washington should return to an independent analysis of search and seizure doctrine under article I, section 7 of the state constitution and reject the admission of contraband seized during the course of a pat-down frisk. The decisions in Hudson and Dickerson have established an unnecessary and unworkable standard, and involve an increased invasion of personal privacy without the counter-balancing need to protect the safety of others. The plain feel doctrine as announced in Dickerson and Hudson developed from two well-established concepts in search and seizure law-the Terry frisk of persons to discover weapons and the plain …

Impeachment Of Party By Prior Inconsistent Statement In Compromise Negotiations: Admissibility Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 408, Fred S. Hjelmeset

Cleveland State Law Review

This note will explore the concept of compromise and the public policy in furtherance of compromise and settlement, and then discuss whether Rule 408,in its current form, is maximizing its potential to effectively serve that public policy. The note concludes that an amendment extending Rule 408's protective reach to exclude a party's prior inconsistent statements in compromise negotiations from admission into evidence for impeachment purposes would strengthen the inducement to settle claims without erecting any new substantial obstacles in the way of the truth-finding process. The central rationale is that, if the laws permit compromise negotiations to become arenas where …

An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook

Cleveland State Law Review

This article addresses the need to formulate a uniform and predictable approach to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony which relates the law to the facts. First, it briefly discusses the history of expert opinion testimony. Second, it discusses, through a case analysis, the difficult, if not impossible task that courts have assumed in attempting to differentiate between two types of expert opinions: (1) those which are, by their nature, factual; and (2) those which require some level of legal analysis-directly relating the law to the facts of the case. Finally, this article suggests an alternative approach which is arguably …

Black Rage: The Illegitimacy Of A Criminal Defense, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 205 (1995), Kimberly M. Copp

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.