Law Commons^™

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 …

A Comparative Analysis Of The Quality Of Homicide Evidence Provided To Law Enforcement, Reilly Calloway

Theses

The present study investigated the perceived quality of homicide evidence provided to law enforcement by the coroner versus medical examiner systems. Respondents (N=15) from county law enforcement agencies in three different Southeastern states that utilize either the coroner, medical examiner, or combination of both systems were presented with a 17-question virtual survey that included questions regarding personal background, educational background, employment history, knowledge of the medical examiner versus coroner systems, and personal experience with one or both systems involving homicide investigations. Participants who resided in the state that utilizes the medical examiner system reported mostly negative feedback regarding the collection, …

Shifting The Male Gaze Of Evidence, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In this article I target the altar at which many of us worship—the pursuit of rationality. For evidence purposes, rationality is defined as decisions that are reasonable, objective, inductive, and free from the bias of emotion. This view of rationality is deeply embedded in evidence scholarship and practice. It is also reflected in evidence rules like FRE 403, which treat emotional testimony as unfairly prejudicial simply because it is emotional. The anti-emotion view of rationality reflects the thinking of Western philosophical giants. Plato, Hobbes, Descartes, and Bacon all thought that men should strive for rationality by suppressing their emotions, because …

The Incongruence Principle Of Evidence, Hillel Bavli

Indiana Law Journal

Evidence law assumes that the meaning and value of information at trial is equal to the meaning and value of the same information in the real world. This premise underlies evidence policy, judicial applications of evidence law, and instructions to jurors for evaluating evidence. However, it is incorrect, and the law’s failure to recognize this hinders its aims of accuracy and equality.

In this article, I draw on fields outside of law—including Bayesian inference and cognitive psychology—to develop a model of evidence that describes how jurors combine new evidence with prior beliefs (or “priors”) to make inferences and judgments. I …

Fuoco V. Polisena, 244 A.3d 124 (R.I. 2021), David Marks

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Hudgen¸ 272 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2022)., Judd W. Krasher

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Incongruence Principle Of Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Evidence law assumes that the meaning and value of information at trial is equal to the meaning and value of the same information in the real world. This premise underlies evidence policy, judicial applications of evidence law, and instructions to jurors for evaluating evidence. However, it is incorrect, and the law’s failure to recognize this hinders its aims of accuracy and equality.

In this article, I draw on fields outside of law - including Bayesian inference and cognitive psychology - to develop a model of evidence that describes how jurors combine new evidence with prior beliefs (or “priors”) to make …

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 …

Honest Belief And Proof Of Unlawful Motive, Eric Schnapper

Articles

A large number of federal statutes impose liability on a defendant if it acted with a forbidden motivation. Intent is also central to the meaning of a number of constitutional provisions, including many applications of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The large volume of litigation under these provisions does not turn on doctrinal differences about the meaning of intent or purpose, but on disputes about the types of evidence that are and are not sufficient to establish the existence of the forbidden purpose. Those standards, as a practical matter, determine the efficacy of the prohibition at issue …

The Private Attorney General In A Time Of Hyper-Polarized Politics, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

With the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) in 1914 and the Wheeler–Lea Act in 1938, Congress sought to establish a brawny federal consumer protection regime to guard against the myriad unfair and deceptive practices that threatened harm to American consumers. But courts in this era interpreted these statutes to confer exclusive enforcement authority in the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), declining to infer a private right of action. For many decades, the resulting enforcement gap in consumer protection law was filled largely by state Unfair and Deceptive Practices Acts (“UDAPs”), which sanction litigation by both public and …

Knowledge Generation And Uncertainty In An Unpredictable Social World, Benjamin David Pyle

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Megan T. Stevenson’s Article, Cause, Effect, and the Structure of the Social World, is an incredibly important, deep, and thought-provoking argument explaining what we can learn about fundamental causal relationships when we observe few interventions with long-lasting, cascading consequences.¹ It is a profound reflection on empirical work in the social sciences.

The Article argues that we have found few, if any, well-identified policy levers that generate outsized, long-term positive impacts for those impacted by the criminal legal system. It offers several explanations for the lack of randomized control trial (“RCT”) evaluations with large, non-mechanical effects, but the …

Once The Jury Sees It, The Jury Can’T Unsee It: The Challenge Trial Judges Face When Authenticating Video Evidence In The Age Of Deepfakes, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The proliferation of deepfake videos has resulted in rapid improvements in the technology used to create them. Although the use of fake videos and images are not new, advances in artificial intelligence have made deepfakes easier to make and harder to detect. Basic human perception is no longer sufficient to detect deepfakes. Yet, under the current construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence, trials judges are expected to do just that. Trial judges face a daunting challenge when applying the current evidence authentication standards to video evidence in this new reality of widely available deepfake videos. This article examines the …

Digital Habit Evidence, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article explores how “habit evidence” will become a catalyst for a new form of digital proof based on the explosive growth of smart homes, smart cars, smart devices, and the Internet of Things. Habit evidence is the rule that certain sorts of semiautomatic, regularized responses to particular stimuli are trustworthy and thus admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 406 “Habit; Routine Practice” and state equivalents.

While well established since the common law, “habit” has made only an inconsistent appearance in reported cases and has been underutilized in trial practice. But intriguingly, once applied to the world of …

Urgensi Pembentukan Laporan Khusus Sebagai Solusi Alat Bukti Surat Dalam Penanganan Kasus Tppu Di Indonesia: Pintu Optimalisasi Hubungan Ppatk-Penyidik, Amanda Geraldine, Altuti Altuti, Muhamad Rayhan Firmansyah

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre or Financial intelligence unit (FIU) is an independent institution that has helped to eradicate and prevent money laundering crimes based on reports used as evidence or evidence in investigations. PPATK analysis report is made based on the report of the income and expenditure of unusual financial accounts by referring to the profile and identity of the owner. Financial Transactions requested by PPATK to be reported by the reporting party because it involves assets suspected of originating from the proceeds of a criminal offence. FATF has issued 40 specific recommendations (forty recommendations) and the …

Tragedies Of The Cultural Commons, Etienne C. Toussaint

Faculty Publications

In the United States, Black cultural expressions of democratic life that operate within specific historical-local contexts, yet reflect a shared set of sociocultural mores, have been historically crowded out of the law and policymaking process. Instead of democratic cultural discourse occurring within an open and neutral marketplace of ideas, the discursive production and consumption of democratic culture in American politics has been rivalrous. Such rivalry too often enables dominant White supremacist cultural beliefs, values, and practices to exercise their hegemony upon law’s production and meaning. The result has been tragedy for politically disempowered and socioeconomically excluded communities.

This Article uses …

The Role Of Expertise In Evidence Before International Courts: A Comparative Study Between The International Court Of Justice And The Judicial System In The World Trade Organization, Firas Alhasan Mr.

مجلة جامعة الإمارات للبحوث القانونية UAEU LAW JOURNAL

The principle mandate of the international adjudicators (such as judges in the International Court of justice and member of the Panels in the WTO judicial system) is to settle the legal disputes presented to them in a given case. In disputes which involves scientific and technical issues, the adjudicators may have a discretionary power to answer scientific and technical questions in scope of the dispute before them, but it’s unreasonable to think that international adjudicators must have knowledge on the various fields that may be subject to international disputes. Consequently, they will have to seek assistance from experts which importance …

For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.

UNH Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lgbtq Youth And The Promise Of The Kennedy Quartet, Michael J. Higdon

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court has only issued four opinions endorsing the constitutional rights of sexual minorities, each of them authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. These four cases, which this Article refers to collectively as “the Kennedy Quartet,” have done much to advance the equality of LGBTQ adults in the United States. The question remains, however, as to what extent those cases likewise protect LGBTQ children. Far from simply being an academic question, this issue has taken on increased urgency as legislators in a number of states—thwarted by the Kennedy Quartet in their ability to target LGBTQ adults—have turned their attentions to …

Creating A System For All Parents: Rethinking Procedural And Evidentiary Rules In Proceedings With Self-Represented Litigants, Cassandra Richards

Dalhousie Law Journal

Through qualitative interviews undertaken with ten judges at the Superior Court of Québec, this study considers the procedural and evidentiary challenges faced by self-represented litigants in family law matters. Subsequently, this paper offers solutions to the problems identified. The goal of this paper is to provide legal participants with concrete techniques to facilitate proceedings with SRLs that uphold their duty of impartiality and duty of assistance. While this article will likely be useful for judges who engage with SRLs daily, it will also be of interest to those working on issues relating to access to justice, SRLs, as well as …

Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas

Dalhousie Law Journal

This paper examines the constitutionality of the Anton Piller order in Canadian law. First, the paper examines whether Anton Piller orders overall are unconstitutional through three major avenues of attack: (i) Charter challenges; (ii) the ultra vires doctrine; and (iii) the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. Afterwards, in the event that no challenge against Anton Piller orders broadly would succeed, the paper examines whether their uniquely Canadian variant known as a “rolling” or “John (or Jane) Doe” Anton Piller orders could be challenged, looking at both Charter and non-Charter challenges. Finally, this paper proposes the imposition of additional …

School District Secession In Mobile County, Alabama: A Case Study Of Adaptive Discrimination And Threats To Multiracial Democracy, Sarah Asson, Erica Frankenberg

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Symposium Issue: Military Veterans And The Law, Timothy E. Lynch

Faculty Works

Upon discharge from the military, veterans must transition from living and working in the military to fully integrating into the civilian world. At a minimum, this means veterans must heal their physical and psychological wounds, find adequate housing, maintain healthy familial relationships, access necessary healthcare, and secure stable civilian employment. Although these needs are often wrought with legal complexities, veterans are often miscategorized and misunderstood by the legal community. This Symposium seeks to understand and address some of these legal issues, and the UMKC Law Review is proud to be publishing several pieces from prominent legal scholars with expertise in …

F.B.I. V. Fazaga: The Secret Of The State-Secrets Privilege, Rebecca Reeves

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

When the government successfully invokes the state-secrets privilege, it allows for evidence to be excluded from trial if making that evidence public would threaten national security. It is unclear, however, under what circumstances this privilege can be invoked, what happens when it is successfully invoked, and what occurs after the evidence is excluded. In Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to clarify the state-secrets privilege. Additionally, the Court will be asked to determine whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) displaces this privilege when the government invokes it regarding evidence …

The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be supported by “Oath or affirmation.” Under current doctrine, a police officer may swear the oath to obtain a warrant merely by repeating the account of an informant. This Article shows, however, that the Fourth Amendment, as originally understood, required that the real accuser with personal knowledge swear the oath.

That real-accuser requirement persisted for nearly two centuries. Almost all federal courts and most state courts from 1850 to 1960 held that the oath, by its very nature, required a witness with personal knowledge. Only in 1960 did the Supreme Court hold in Jones …

“Reverse” 404(B) Is Not An Evidence Law Issue: A Call To Revive The Compulsory Process Clause As A Vehicle For Evidence Admission, Clay Wilwol

New Mexico Law Review

In criminal cases, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is typically used by prosecutors seeking to introduce non-propensity “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” evidence against defendants. However, sometimes it is the defendant who seeks to use the Rule as a vehicle for evidence admissibility, either to provide such evidence to implicate the guilt of a third party or to help prove the intent or motive of alleged victims in violent crimes involving altercations. This latter defense-proffered use of Rule 404(b) has been termed “reverse” 404(b), and currently there is disagreement among courts (both federal and state) regarding how to assess the …

The Living Rules Of Evidence, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The jurisprudential evolution of evidence law is dead. At least, that’s what we’re expected to believe. Ushered in on the wings of a growing positivist movement, the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence purported to quell judicial authority over evidence law. Instead, committees, conferences, and members of Congress would regulate any change to our evidentiary regime, thereby capturing the evolution of evidence law in a single, transparent code.

The codification of evidence law, though, has proven problematic. The arrival of the Federal Rules of Evidence has given rise to a historically anomalous era of relative stagnation in the doctrinal …

The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath, Laurent Sacharoff

Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be supported by "Oath or affirmation." Under current doctrine, a police officer may swear the oath to obtain a warrant merely by repeating the account of an informant. This Article shows, however, that the Fourth Amendment, as originally understood, required that the real accuser with personal knowledge swear the oath.

That real-accuser requirement persisted for nearly two centuries. Almost all federal courts and most state courts from 1850 to 1960 held that the oath, by its very nature, required a witness with personal knowledge. Only in 1960 did the Supreme Court hold in Jones …

The Authenticity Of Visual Recording In Criminal Evidence In Palestinian Legislation, عبدالله ذيب محمود, Osama I. Darraj

AAU Journal of Business and Law مجلة جامعة العين للأعمال والقانون

This study revolves around the authenticity of video recordings before the criminal judiciary in Palestine, as video recordings of all kinds have become widely spread in society, especially with modern technical development, and imaging devices have spread in public and private places, which opened the way to consider the authenticity of these recordings in the event The occurrence of a crime to benefit from it in criminal proof. The Palestinian judiciary has taken the legality of the evidence derived from visual recordings in public places, where it is required that the visual evidence, like the rest of the other evidence, …

The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (adopted by various states as well) allows for the introduction of certain convictions at trial to impeach the credibility— i.e., character for truthfulness—of any witness. The rule bifurcates its requirements between those that apply to criminal defendants—who, in theory, are afforded greater protection throughout the law than are all other participants in trials—and all remaining witnesses. The most important distinction between the standards that apply to these two classes of witnesses is that for prior crimes of criminal defendants to be introduced to impeach their credibility, those wrongdoings must survive a special balancing test spelled …