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, …

Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert: The Fatal Flaws Of ‘Falsifiability’ And ‘Falsification’, Barbara P. Billauer Esq

barbara p billauer esq

Abstract: The Daubert mantra demands that judges, acting as gatekeepers, prevent para, pseudo or ‘bad’ science from infiltrating the courtroom. To do so, the Judges must first determine what “science” is? And then, what ‘good science’ is? It is submitted that Daubert is seriously polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This inapt philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis. Among other problems, is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, a key component of toxic- torts. Thus, the primary …

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

Wesley M Oliver

Daubert Debunked: A History Of Legal Retrogression A History Of Legal Retrogression And The Need To Reassess ‘Scientific Admissibility’, Barbara P. Billauer Esq

barbara p billauer esq

Abstract: With ‘novel’ scientific discoveries accelerating at an unrelenting pace, the need for accessible and implementable standards for evaluating the legal admissibility of scientific evidence becomes more and more crucial. As science changes, legal standards for evaluating ‘novel’ science must be plastic enough to respond to fast-moving changes. This, ostensibly, was the Daubert objective. Since it was decided in 1993, however, Daubert’s impact has been hotly contested -- with plaintiffs and defendants each claiming the decision unfairly favors the other side. New approaches are constantly suggested to deal with the perceived impact, although there is no uniform consensus of exactly …

Dumping Daubert, Popping Popper And Falsifying Falsifiability: A Re-Assessment Of First Principles, Barbara P. Billauer Esq

barbara p billauer esq

Abstract: The Daubert mantra demands that judges, acting as gatekeepers, prevent para, pseudo or bad science from infiltrating the courtroom. To do so, the Judges must first determine what is ‘science’ and what is ‘good science.’ It is submitted that Daubert is deeply polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis, and an unworkable system of decision-making, which negatively impacts litigant expectations. Among other problems is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, …

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

Schultz V. Akzo Nobel Paints: “The Rest Of The Story” Reveals Limited Impact Of Expert Testimony Decision, Richard O. Faulk

Richard Faulk

Certainly, a number of lawyers from both sides of the bar believe that the Schultz decision is important. A review of the record in Schultz, however, reveals a relatively easy explanation for the decision—one that undermines its value as precedent. To understand why this is so, we must go back to the district court’s decision to grant Akzo Nobel’s motion for summary judgment and, with apologies to Paul Harvey, appreciate the “rest of the story.”

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

On Shaky Ground: The Need For The Reexamination Of The Admissibility Of Field Sobriety Testing, Patrick A. Corbus

Patrick A Corbus

Federal and state rules of evidence permit judges to take judicial notice of specific categories of facts, which allows these facts into evidence if the truth of these facts is so notorious or well known that they cannot be refuted. Frequently, judicial notice is used for the most basic, or common sense, facts without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence. At times, however, a request is made for a court to judicially notice something more complex than which day of the week corresponds to a particular calendar date. While judicial notice can contribute to a …

On Shaky Ground: The Need For The Reexamination Of The Admissibility Of Field Sobriety Testing, Patrick A. Corbus

Patrick A Corbus

Federal and state rules of evidence permit judges to take judicial notice of specific categories of facts, which allows these facts into evidence if the truth of these facts is so notorious or well known that they cannot be refuted. Frequently, judicial notice is used for the most basic, or common sense, facts without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence. At times, however, a request is made for a court to judicially notice something more complex than which day of the week corresponds to a particular calendar date. While judicial notice can contribute to a …

On Shaky Ground: The Need For The Reexamination Of The Admissibility Of Field Sobriety Testing, Patrick A. Corbus

Patrick A Corbus

Federal and state rules of evidence permit judges to take judicial notice of specific categories of facts, which allows these facts into evidence if the truth of these facts is so notorious or well known that they cannot be refuted. Frequently, judicial notice is used for the most basic, or common sense, facts without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence. At times, however, a request is made for a court to judicially notice something more complex than which day of the week corresponds to a particular calendar date. While judicial notice can contribute to a …

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

Louise Harmon

No abstract provided.

High-Tech View: The Use Of Immersive Virtual Environments In Jury Trials, Carrie Leonetti, Jeremy Bailenson

Carrie Leonetti

This Article makes both empirical and normative claims about the admissibility of immersive-virtual-environment evidence during a jury trial. The empirical claim is that IVE evidence will inevitably enter the American courtroom; the normative one is that this inevitable entrance is a positive development for the jury’s search for truth.

It argues that, while the digital projections created by an IVE are not perfectly realistic representations of the objects that they seek to recreate, an IVE can, nonetheless, be a fair and accurate representation of the scene that it represents, as long as an expert witness could lay the appropriate foundation …

High-Tech View: The Use Of Immersive Virtual Environments In Jury Trials, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

This Article makes both empirical and normative claims about the admissibility of immersive-virtual-environment evidence during a jury trial. The empirical claim is that IVE evidence will inevitably enter the American courtroom; the normative one is that this inevitable entrance is a positive development for the jury’s search for truth.

It argues that, while the digital projections created by an IVE are not perfectly realistic representations of the objects that they seek to recreate, an IVE can, nonetheless, be a fair and accurate representation of the scene that it represents, as long as an expert witness could lay the appropriate foundation …

High-Tech View: The Use Of Immersive Virtual Environments In Jury Trials, Carrie Leonetti, Jeremy Bailenson

Carrie Leonetti

This Article makes both empirical and normative claims about the admissibility of immersive-virtual-environment evidence during a jury trial. The empirical claim is that IVE evidence will inevitably enter the American courtroom; the normative one is that this inevitable entrance is a positive development for the jury’s search for truth.

It argues that, while the digital projections created by an IVE are not perfectly realistic representations of the objects that they seek to recreate, an IVE can, nonetheless, be a fair and accurate representation of the scene that it represents, as long as an expert witness could lay the appropriate foundation …

High-Tech View: The Use Of Immersive Virtual Environments In Jury Trials, Carrie Leonetti, Jeremy Bailenson

Carrie Leonetti

This Article makes both empirical and normative claims about the admissibility of immersive-virtual-environment evidence during a jury trial. The empirical claim is that IVE evidence will inevitably enter the American courtroom; the normative one is that this inevitable entrance is a positive development for the jury’s search for truth.

It argues that, while the digital projections created by an IVE are not perfectly realistic representations of the objects that they seek to recreate, an IVE can, nonetheless, be a fair and accurate representation of the scene that it represents, as long as an expert witness could lay the appropriate foundation …

High-Tech View: The Use Of Immersive Virtual Environments In Jury Trials, Carrie Leonetti, Jeremy Bailenson

Carrie Leonetti

This Article makes both empirical and normative claims about the admissibility of immersive-virtual-environment evidence during a jury trial. The empirical claim is that IVE evidence will inevitably enter the American courtroom; the normative one is that this inevitable entrance is a positive development for the jury’s search for truth.

It argues that, while the digital projections created by an IVE are not perfectly realistic representations of the objects that they seek to recreate, an IVE can, nonetheless, be a fair and accurate representation of the scene that it represents, as long as an expert witness could lay the appropriate foundation …

Jurisdiction And Admissibility Before The International Criminal Court, Joseph Davids

Joseph Davids

This paper analyses issues of jurisdiction and admissibility before the ICC in cases of self-referrals. The paper looks to the rules of procedure, the treaty and pragmatic considerations in an attempt to predict how the court would rule where a defendant challenges admissibility in a case that was self-referred but the referring State begins an investigation in to the crime.

Evidentiary Value Of Expert Opinion Under Indian Evidence Act, Krishna Kumari Areti

Krishna Kumari Areti prof

Law of evidence allows a person –who is a witness to state the facts related to either to a fact in issue or to relevant fact, but not his inference. It applies to both criminal law and civil law. The opinion of any person other than the judge by whom the fact has to be decided as to the existence of the facts in issue or relevant facts are as a rule, irrelevant to the decision of the cases to which they relate for the most obvious reasons- for this would invest the person whose opinion was proved with the …

Testing The Admissibility Of Trademark Surveys After Daubert, Artemio Rivera

Artemio Rivera

To be admissible, a survey must apply the principles of survey research to the target population in a reliable manner, and base its results upon sufficient interviews and responses. These requirements make clear that the existence of flaws in a survey is not simply a matter of weight to be resolved by the fact finder, but an issue of admissibility that must be determined by the courts as part of their gate keeping duties.

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.