Law Commons^™

Moral Character, Motive, And The Psychology Of Blame, Janice Nadler, Mary-Hunter Morris Mcdonnell

Faculty Working Papers

Blameworthiness, in the criminal law context, is conceived as the carefully calculated end product of discrete judgments about a transgressor's intentionality, causal proximity to harm, and the harm's foreseeability. Research in social psychology, on the other hand, suggests that blaming is often intuitive and automatic, driven by a natural impulsive desire to express and defend social values and expectations. The motivational processes that underlie psychological blame suggest that judgments of legal blame are influenced by factors the law does not always explicitly recognize or encourage. In this Article we focus on two highly related motivational processes – the desire to …

If The Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value Of Forensic Science Testimony, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

The probative value of forensic science evidence (such as a shoeprint) varies widely depending on how the evidence and hypothesis of interest is characterized. This paper uses a likelihood ratio (LR) approach to identify the probative value of forensic science evidence. It argues that the "evidence" component should be characterized as a "reported match," and that the hypothesis component should be characterized as "the matching person or object is the source of the crime scene sample." This characterization of the LR forces examiners to incorporate risks from sample mix-ups and examiner error into their match statistics. But how will legal …

Proficiency Tests To Estimate Error Rates In The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

A proficiency test is an assessment of the performance of laboratory personnel using samples whose sources are known to the proficiency test administrator but unknown to the examinee. Proficiency tests can help identify reasonable first pass estimates for the rates at which various types of errors occur. It is crucial to obtain error rate estimates because the reliability and probative value of forensic science evidence is inextricably linked to the rates at which examiners make errors. Without such information, legal decision makers have no scientifically meaningful way of thinking about the risk of false identification and false non-identification associated with …

The Potential For State Attorneys General To Promote The Public’S Health: Theory, Evidence, And Practice, Lainie Rutkow, Stephen P. Teret

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

The Attorneys General of the 50 states have considerable legal authority to protect the public’s health, yet their role in the development of health policy is often under-appreciated or misunderstood. This article analyzes state Attorneys’ General current powers and provides a logic model that illustrates how the use of these powers can lead to the protection and promotion of the public’s health. The article then provides four brief case studies to demonstrate how state Attorneys General have used their varied powers to influence policy-making and benefit the public’s health. In addition, this article offers a roadmap for research that could …

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.

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

The Affective Blindness Of Evidence Law, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Evidentiary rules and practices reveal a folk psychological view of emotion, placing it at odds with reason. Specifically, many substantive and procedural rules of evidence explicitly require jurors to turn off their emotions in favor of rational, so-called “top-down,” executive thinking. In order to make the point that this dichotomy between emotion and reason is simultaneously reflected in our evidence law and also empirically wrong, I will address how emotion is treated in (a) the use of limiting instructions, (b) the exclusion of prejudicial evidence, (c) credibility assessments, (d) sentencing and damages instructions, (e) instructions related to the “heat of …

Narrative Implications Of Evidentiary Rules, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

Advocates are increasingly conscious of courtroom disputes as forms of story-battles, in which the parties present competing narratives. But the rules of evidence -- determining which facts can be incorporated into the presentation of the parties' stories -- can also often best be understood from a narrative point of view. This paper examines narrative features underlying evidentiary rules dealing with leading questions, "speaking objections," and hearsay.

The Evolution Of The Law Of Evidence: Plus Ça Change…?, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Originally prepared as a CLE backgrounder for criminal lawyers, this article provides a brief and occasionally critical account of developments in the law of evidence over the last three or so decades. Particular attention is paid to the Supreme Court of Canada’s introduction and development of the “principled approach.” It is argued that this framework has been most successful where it has coalesced into a more traditional-looking “rules-based” stance, albeit one based in principle, and less so where looser tests of principle have been given freer rein.

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Rules Update: Rules Amended As Of December 2010, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence become effective three years from initial drafting by an advisory committee. Proposed amendments are considered by the respective advisory committees, then circulated for public comment, and then forwarded to the Judicial Conference’s Standing Committee on Rules. If approved by the Judicial Conference, they are sent to the Supreme Court for any appropriate changes. If Congress makes no changes after approval by the Supreme Court, the amendments automatically become effective December 1. Two proposed amendments in 2010 did not become effective because they were not submitted to Congress under the procedure outlined …

Hearsay After Crawford: A Practitioner's Guide, Marcia G. Cooke

St. Thomas Law Review

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Although it may appear simple, concise and direct, the language of the Sixth Amendment has been the subject of much discussion.' The Confrontation Clause has been inevitably comingled with the hearsay rules, and determining when an out-of-court statement violates the rights of criminal defendants has been no easy task. For many years, it was uncontested, as established in Ohio v. Roberts, that to avoid violating a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, the …

Dna Fabrication, A Wake Up Call: The Need To Reevaluate The Admissibility And Reliability Of Dna Evidence, Kristen Bolden

Georgia State University Law Review

In June 2009, Israeli forensic science researchers published a ground breaking study that put credence to the possibility of creating artificial Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) that can fool current forensic testing procedures. The researchers asserted that anyone with the proper equipment and basic understanding of molecular biology could create artificial DNA in virtually unending amounts. Furthermore, the research demonstrates that the current American forensic science system utilized by law enforcement is incapable of distinguishing between artificial and genuine DNA.

Good Faith, Bad Faith And The Gulf Between: A Proposal For Consistent Terminology, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Since the earliest days of section 24(2) jurisprudence, the phrase “good faith” has been used. For nearly as long, it has been used inconsistently. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the phrase “bad faith.” This article traces the confusion which arises in understanding and in reasoning from the failure to restrict these phrases to single meanings. The article then proposes particular meanings for each, which would limit their applicability to extreme situations at either end of the spectrum. It is proposed that the term “good faith” should only be used in circumstances where it settles that the …

Schultz V. Bank Of America: A Fly In The Financial Buttermilk - Clarifying The Common Knowledge Exception To Improve Litigation Efficiency And Bank Safety, Lauren M. Elfner

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Availability Of Spousal Privileges For Same-Sex Couples, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, W. James Denvil

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Good Medicine/Bad Medicine And The Law Of Evidence: Is There A Role For Proof Of Character, Propensity, Or Prior Bad Conduct In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 801(D)'S Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory And A Suggested Amendment, Sam Stonefield

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines Rule 801(d)’s oxymoronic treatment of admissions and prior statements as “not hearsay.” This “not hearsay” label is inaccurate – the evidence is hearsay, as defined in Rule 801(c) – and is inconsistent with the analytically important and well-established use of the term not hearsay to describe evidence that is actually not hearsay.

The Article tells the story of how the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence ended up with such a confused and confusing label and proposes an amendment that would classify admissions and prior statements as hearsay exceptions and place each in a new, separate, …

"Fact-Finding Without Facts": A Conversation With Nancy Combs, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

False Security: How Courts Have Improperly Rendered The Protections Of The Protective Order Illusory, Ramona L. Lampley

Faculty Articles

The protective order is perhaps one of the most useful and “taken for granted” discovery devices contemplated by the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of a joint protective order in civil litigation is to permit the parties to produce business information without fear that the information will be disseminated publicly, and with a court order that the information be used only for purposes of the present litigation. Blanket protective orders serve the interests of a just, speedy, and less expensive determination of complex disputes by alleviating the need for and delay occasioned by extensive and repeated …

Book Review Of Fact Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations Of International Criminal Convictions, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Williams V. Illinois And The Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony By A Surrogate Witness Violate The Confrontation Clause?, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party. …

A Punishing Court Docket, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Sky Is Not Falling: How The Anticlimactic Application Of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts To Oklahoma's Laboratory Report Procedures Allows Room For Improvement, Danae Vansickle Grace

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Spoliation Of Electronic Evidence: Sanctions Versus Advocacy, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

This Article proposes that courts should refrain from imposing adverse inference jury instructions as sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. This proposal bears some similarity to the approach taken twenty years ago by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, which constrained courts' ability to sanction. Instead of imposing an adverse jury instruction as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, courts should allow evidence of spoliation to be admitted at trial if a reasonable jury could find that spoliation had occurred and if the spoliation was relevant to a material issue. If a court allows the introduction of evidence of spoliation …

Supergeneric Collateral Descriptions In Financing Statements And Notice Filing, Lissa Lamkin Broome

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Virginia B. Theisen, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many cases and bills those that have the most significant practical impact on the daily practice of criminal law in the Commonwealth. Due to space constraints, the authors have stayed away from discussing settled principles, with a focus on the "take away" for a particular case.

Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan

Faculty Publications and Presentations

An inquiry that seeks truth by accepting only natural answers excludes the possibility of the sacred or supernatural, building a wall that forecloses a complete exploration for the truth it seeks. Without analysis, critics dismiss sources presenting supernatural explanations, and those who believe sacred works have no factual foundation accept without investigation any popular theory that appears attractive. The rules of evidence expressly seek truth, wherever it lies. Noted legal scholar Simon Greenleaf used evidentiary principles to demonstrate the factual credibility of the Gospels in his Testimony of the Evangelists. This Article examines Greenleaf’s analysis, applying current rules of evidence …

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.