Law Commons^™

Bad Science Begets Bad Convictions: The Need For Postconviction Relief In The Wake Of Discredited Forensics, Jessica Gabel Cino

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Death Of Fairness: Texas's Future Dangerousness Revisited, Ana M. Otero

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Colorado's Undemanding Notice Requirement: Pro Se Defendants And Forensic Technician Testimony, Sarah M. Morris, Lauren L. Fontana

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Compared: The Reception Of Incriminating Expert Evidence (I.E., Forensic Science) In Four Adversarial Jurisdictions, Gary Edmond, Simon Cole, Emma Cunliffe, Andrew Roberts

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Gordian Knot Of The Treatment Of Secondhand Facts Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 703 Governing The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions: Another Conflict Between Logic And Law, Edward J. Imwinkelried

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Backdoor Admission Of Testimonial Statements Against An Accused: The Danger Of Expert Reliance On Inadmissible Information, Sarah E. Stout

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule With Administrative Rulemaking, Francis A. Gilligan, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …

The Exclusion Of Evidence In The United States, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

Restrictions On Law Enforcement Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

Australia And The United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly At Odds, Paul Marcus, Vicki Waye

Paul Marcus

At first glance the criminal justice systems of Australia and the United States look strikingly similar. With common law roots from England, they both emphasize the adversary system, the roleof the advocate, the presumption of innocence, and an appeals process. Upon closer reflection,however, they appear starkly different. From both Australian and U.S. perspectives, the authorsexplore those differences, examining important features such as the exclusion of evidence, rules regarding interrogation, the entrapment defense, and the open nature of trials. The Article concludes with an analysis of the reasons for those differences, reasons that heavily relate back to the founding of the …

Doing Away With The Exclusionary Rule, Francis A. Gilligan, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

The Challenge Of Convicting Ethical Prosecutors That Their Profession Has A Brady Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

In recent decades, both the media and legal scholars have documented the widespread problem of prosecutors failing to disclose favorable evidence to the defense – so called Brady violations. Despite all of this documentation however, many ethical prosecutors reject the notion that the criminal justice system has a Brady problem. These prosecutors – ethical lawyers who themselves have not been accused of misconduct – believe that the scope of the Brady problem is exaggerated. Why do ethical prosecutors downplay the evidence that some of their colleagues have committed serious errors?

This essay, in honor of Professor Bennett Gershman, points to …

Promising Protection: 911 Call Records As Foundation For Family Violence Intervention, James G. Dwyer

James G. Dwyer

No abstract provided.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements In Singapore: What Is The Appropriate Standard For Judicial Approval, Eunice Chua, Benedict Wei Qi Chan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Originating from the US, deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”) have made their way to the UK through the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and Singapore through the Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018. The Singapore model for approval of DPAs draws heavily from the UK and both require proof to a court that DPAs are in the “interests of justice” and that their terms are “fair, reasonable and proportionate” before DPAs can be approved. This paper considers the theoretical basis for the court’s approval of DPAs, critically examines the application of the tests for approval of DPAs in the UK and considers …

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Court Of Appeals

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Maryland Makes New Evidence Postconviction Review Provisions Available To Defendants With Plea Deals, Felicia Langel

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …

Beyond The Witness: Bringing A Process Perspective To Modern Evidence Law, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The focal point of the modern trial is the witness. Witnesses are the source of observations, lay and expert opinions, authentication, as well as the conduit through which documentary, physical, and scientific evidence is introduced. Evidence law therefore unsurprisingly concentrates on – or perhaps obsesses over – witnesses. In this Article, we argue that this witness-centered perspective is antiquated and counterproductive. As a historical matter, focusing on witnesses may have made sense when most evidence was the product of individual observation and action. But the modern world frequently features evidence produced through standardized, objective, and even mechanical processes that largely …

Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because …

The Challenge Of Convincing Ethical Prosecutors That Their Profession Has A Brady Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

In recent decades, both the media and legal scholars have documented the widespread problem of prosecutors failing to disclose favorable evidence to the defense – so called Brady violations. Despite all of this documentation however, many ethical prosecutors reject the notion that the criminal justice system has a Brady problem. These prosecutors – ethical lawyers who themselves have not been accused of misconduct – believe that the scope of the Brady problem is exaggerated. Why do ethical prosecutors downplay the evidence that some of their colleagues have committed serious errors?

This essay, in honor of Professor Bennett Gershman, points to …

Addressing Racial Bias In The Jury System: Another Failed Attempt?, Alisa Micu

Georgia State University Law Review

This Note explores the majority opinion and the dissents in Pena- Rodriguez regarding whether the Supreme Court has adequately provided guidance for lower courts to follow the ruling, which now allows exceptions for evidence of racial bias to Rule 606(b). Part I discusses the history of the no-impeachment rule, its foundation in the Sixth Amendment, and its constitutional requirements. Further, Part I discusses the different approaches that courts have taken in adopting Rule 606(b) and what problems courts have identified in its application. Part II analyzes whether the Supreme Court, as a practical matter, has provided a workable procedural scheme …

Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because the …

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

Privacy And Security Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Three recent initiatives -by the United States, European Union, and Australiaare opening salvos in what will likely be an ongoing and critically important debate about law enforcement access to data, the jurisdictional limits to such access, and the rules that apply. Each of these developments addresses a common set of challenges posed by the increased digitalization of information, the rising power of private companies delimiting access to that information, and the cross-border nature of investigations that involve digital evidence. And each has profound implications for privacy, security, and the possibility of meaningful democratic accountability and control. This Essay analyzes the …