Law Commons^™

The Federal Rules Of Emojis: A Proposed Framework For Handling Emoji Evidence In Trial Contexts, Marilyn Hurzeler

Fordham Law Review

Emojis are 3,633 ubiquitous symbols-as-communication used by 92 percent of internet users. These tiny yet influential pieces of evidence hold the power to complete, enhance, mitigate, and flip the meaning of surrounding text. Consequently, court references to emojis have grown exponentially in the last five years. As emojis have become a cornerstone of digital discourse, courts have increasingly encountered the significant impact of emojis on parties’ legal claims. A guide for handling of emoji evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), therefore, is important to afford proper treatment to this relatively new evidentiary form.

This Note discusses how the …

Race, Gatekeeping, Magical Words, And The Rules Of Evidence, I. Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

Although it might not be apparent from the Federal Rules of Evidence themselves, or the common law that preceded them, there is a long history in this country of tying evidence—what is deemed relevant, what is deemed trustworthy—to race. And increasingly, evidence scholars are excavating that history. Indeed, not just excavating, but showing how that history has racial effects that continue into the present.

One area that has escaped racialized scrutiny—at least of the type I am interested in—is that of expert testimony. In this brief Essay written for the Vanderbilt Law Review Symposium, Reimagining the Rules of Evidence at …

Binding Hercules: A Proposal For Bench Trials, Maggie Wittlin

Faculty Scholarship

Should the Federal Rules of Evidence apply at bench trials? By their own terms, they apply, but courts have been reluctant to enforce them on themselves with the same rigor that they enforce them on juries. Scholarship on the issue has been mixed. Although McCormick deemed the rules of evidence "absurdly inappropriate" outside of the jury context, more recently, scholars have suggested that many reasons for imposing exclusionary rules on jurors also apply to judges. Yet practical problems persist. For one, once judge evaluate the admissibility of evidence, they can’t “unring the bell” and ignore evidence they've decided to exclude. …

Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin

Faculty Scholarship

A child makes an out-of-court statement accusing an adult of abuse. That statement is important proof, but it also presents serious reliability concerns. When deciding whether it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, should a court consider whether the child’s statement is corroborated—whether, for example, there is medical evidence of abuse? More broadly, should courts consider corroboration when deciding whether evidence is reliable enough to be admitted at trial? Judges, rule-makers, and scholars have taken significantly divergent approaches to this question and come to different conclusions.

This Article argues that there is a key problem with using corroboration to evaluate …

Prejudicial Character Evidence: How The Circuits Apply Old Chief To Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Hannah J. Goldman

Fordham Law Review

It is a fundamental principle of the American justice system that a defendant should be judged on the facts of the case at issue and not for the defendant's general character or past indiscretions. Federal Rule of Evidence 404, which prohibits character evidence, addresses this issue. Rule 403 represents another principle of the justice system: the legal system favors admissibility of evidence over its exclusion. There are some exceptions to this principle, including when evidence is so highly prejudicial that it outweighs the benefits of its admission. As 404(b) character evidence is almost always highly prejudicial to the defendant, trial …

Snap Judgment: Recognizing The Propriety And Pitfalls Of Direct Judicial Review Of Audiovisual Evidence At Summary Judgment, Denise K. Barry

Fordham Law Review

Conflicting results in two recent police excessive force decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court—Tolan v. Cotton and Plumhoff v. Rickard—have sown confusion about the standards for summary judgment. This Note shows how the two decisions are consistent with each other and with longstanding summary judgment precedents. The key insight is that since the Second Circuit’s iconic 1946 decision in Arnstein v. Porter, appellate judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have listened to audio recordings, scrutinized artwork, and—as in the case of Plumhoff—watched video footage in order to decide for themselves whether there is a genuine issue of …

Should The Medium Affect The Message? Legal And Ethical Implications Of Prosecutors Reading Inmate-Attorney Email, Brandon P. Ruben

Fordham Law Review

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential legal communications between a party and her attorney from being used against her, thus encouraging full and frank attorney-client communication. It is a venerable evidentiary principle of American jurisprudence. Unsurprisingly, prosecutors may not eavesdrop on inmate-attorney visits or phone calls or read inmate-attorney postal mail. Courts are currently divided, however, as to whether or not they can forbid prosecutors from reading inmate- attorney email.

This Note explores the cases that address whether federal prosecutors may read inmates’ legal email. As courts have unanimously held, because inmates know that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) monitors all …

The Myth Of The Double- Edged Sword: An Empirical Study Of Neuroscience Evidence In Criminal Cases, Deborah W. Denno

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents the results of my unique study of 800 criminal cases addressing neuroscience evidence over the past two decades (1992–2012). Many legal scholars have theorized about the impact of neuroscience evidence on the criminal law, but this is the first empirical study of its kind to systematically investigate how courts assess the mitigating and aggravating strength of such evidence. My analysis reveals that neuroscience evidence is usually offered to mitigate punishments in the way that traditional criminal law has always allowed, especially in the penalty phase of death penalty trials. This finding controverts the popular image of neuroscience …

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

The Phillip D. Reed Lecture Series: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Architects Of Justice: The Prosecutor’S Role And Resolving Whether Inadmissible Evidence Is Material Under The Brady Rule, Blaise Niosi

Fordham Law Review

In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant’s guilt or punishment upon request. The Court’s subsequent expansion of its holding in Brady has formed the “Brady rule,” which requires the prosecution to learn of and to disclose to the defendant all material exculpatory and impeachment information. The Court defined “material” as information that would cause a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had it been disclosed.

Currently, a circuit court split exists regarding whether evidence is material for purposes of the Brady …

The Court As Gatekeeper: Preventing Unreliable Pretrial Ediscovery From Jeopardizing A Reliable Fact-Finding Process, Daniel K. Gelb

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Adverse Inference Instruction After Revised Rule 37(E): An Evidence-Based Proposal, Shira A. Sheindlin, Natalie M. Orr

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank: What To Do When Hearsay And Rule 106 Completeness Collide, Michael A. Hardin

Fordham Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 106 provides that when one party in a trial or hearing offers into evidence a portion of a statement in a misleading way, the opposing party can offer the rest, or some other portion of, that document or recorded statement at the same time if it is necessary for the factfinder to understand and contextualize the first part. Sometimes, however, the other portion, or “remainder,” would be inadmissible if it were offered by itself, either because it is hearsay or for some other reason. This leaves the court in a difficult position: Should it allow the …

Plea Bargaining In The Dark: The Duty To Disclose Exculpatory Brady Evidence During Plea Bargaining, Michael Nasser Petegorsky

Fordham Law Review

Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions are the result of guilty pleas. Despite the criminal justice system’s reliance on plea bargaining, the law regarding the prosecution’s duty to disclose certain evidence during this stage of the judicial process is unsettled. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to disclose evidence that establishes the defendant’s factual innocence during a trial. Some courts apply this rule during plea bargaining and require the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence before the entry of a guilty plea. Other courts have held or suggested that the prosecution may suppress exculpatory evidence during plea …

You Must Be This Qualified To Offer An Opinion: Permitting Law Enforcement Officers To Testify As Laypersons Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 701, Kim Channick

Fordham Law Review

Every day, in courtrooms across the United States, law enforcement officers testify in criminal and civil trials. Often an officer is certified as an expert witness and, accordingly, can provide opinions to the court based on his or her law enforcement expertise. Other times, the officer offers testimony as a layperson. In the latter situation, Federal Rule of Evidence 701 controls the officer’s lay opinion testimony. This Rule was first adopted to remedy a problematic common law practice of universally prohibiting lay opinion testimony. As the Rule stands now, all lay witnesses, including law enforcement officers, must limit their opinions …

Panel Discussion: Reinvigorating Rule 502, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Model Draft Of A Rule 502(D) Order, Symposium Participants

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Rule 502: The Solution To The Privilege-Protection Puzzle In The Digital Era, John M. Barkett

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enter The Order, Protect The Privilege: Considerations For Courts Entering Protective Orders Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 502(D), Edwin M. Buffmire

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rulemakers’ Laments, Richard Marcus

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Safe? The Need For State Ethical Rules To Keep Pace With Technological Advances, Ann M. Murphy

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Horses Drink: Conceptual Change Theory And Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Liesa L. Richter

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Weaving Functional Brain Imaging Into The Tapestry Of Evidence: A Case For Functional Neuroimaging In Federal Criminal Courts, Adam Teitcher

Fordham Law Review

Recent advances in brain imaging technologies allow researchers to "peer inside" a defendant's brain. Although functional neuroimaging evidence is frequently used in civil litigation, federal courts have been hesitant to admit it into evidence in criminal trials. Scholars and commentators alike continue to debate the merits, detriments, and general admissibility of functional neuroimaging evidence in the criminal context. Meanwhile, federal judges repeatedly admit various forms of forensic science into evidence without evaluating them under the appropriate admissibility standards. This Note argues that this has created a double standard for evidence admissibility. Functional neuroimaging evidence may, in fact, be more scientifically …

Excluding Coerced Witness Testimony To Protect A Criminal Defendant's Right To Due Process Of Law And Adequately Deter Police Misconduct, Katherine Sheridan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note argues that the Due Process Clause must protect criminal defendants from the admission of an involuntary statement made by a witness. Part I discusses the history of the use of involuntary statements, specifically the justifications for the exclusion of coerced confessions. Part II examines how various courts have addressed the issue and have come to different conclusions. Part III explains why involuntary witness statements should be excluded under the Due Process Clause in criminal trials.

Judge Or Jury? Determining Deception Or Misrepresentation Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Christian Stueben

Fordham Law Review

This Note explores the conflict among the federal circuit courts as to whether a judge or jury should decide if the language contained in a collection letter is false, misleading, or deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Some circuits, such as the Second and Ninth Circuits, hold that this issue is a question of law, appropriate for the judge to decide. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit finds this to be a question of fact, and requires the plaintiff to submit extrinsic evidence in the form of professional surveys in order to reach …

Reconciling Classified Evidence And A Petitioner's Right To A "Meaningful Review" At Guantanamo Bay: A Legislative Solution, Sarah Lorr

Fordham Law Review

In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus and are entitled to a “meaningful review” of their habeas petitions. This Note attempts to reconcile the need for a “meaningful review” with the government’s reliance on classified evidence that is completely inaccessible to the detainee-petitioners. After examining three other contexts in which the reliance on classified evidence has been sanctioned—federal criminal courts, immigration cases, and the ongoing military commissions at Guantánamo—this Note concludes that a “meaningful review” of the Guantánamo habeas petitions requires …

The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones

Fordham Law Review

Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriate sanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutional claims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable “bad faith” standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other “access to evidence” violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the “access to evidence” …

Ferreting Out Favoritism: Bringing Pretext Claims After Kelo, Daniel S. Hafetz

Fordham Law Review

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that governments may take one’s private property and give it to another for the purpose of promoting economic development. The Court held that, in evaluating Fifth Amendment challenges to such takings, courts should defer to legislative judgments as to what constitutes a valid public purpose. Critics argue that this decision opened the floodgates to pretextual abuse. Specifically, they contend that local governments that exercise the eminent domain power are often motivated by a desire to favor another private party. After Kelo, courts have struggled to reconcile …