Law Commons^™

Reinforcing The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad After Blocking Statutes, Data Privacy Directives, And Aerospatiale, Brian Friederich

San Diego International Law Journal

There has always been tension between European countries and the United States on the topic of evidence gathering. Much of that tension stems from the inherent differences between common and civil policies and methods. Until the Hague Convention, the process for obtaining evidence abroad was cumbersome and unreliable. The Hague Convention sought to change that by providing signatory countries more effective methods of cooperating with each other in international litigation. However, the Hague Convention has not been able to achieve its purpose, at least not in the United States. U.S. courts have interpreted the Hague Convention as optional, meaning it …

The Admissibility Of Electronic Business Records, Ken Chasse

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The business record provisions of the Evidence Acts determine a record’s admissibility by evidence of its history, which must be the product of “the usual and ordinary course of business” (or comparable “business activity” wording). The electronic record provisions determine a record’s admissibility by the, “integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored.” The difference is, records management (RM) based on “paper records concepts” versus “electronic records systems concepts.” The former is subjective — each business determines its own “usual and ordinary course of business”; the latter, objective — in accor- dance with authoritative standards …

When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

Fact-finding at the international tribunals is not as precise as we think. Nancy Combs, Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, explores this in her new book 'Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions'.

How Less Is More: The Unraveling Of The Inextricable Intertwinement Doctrine Under United States V. Gorman, Jaime L. Padgett

Seventh Circuit Review

In July 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explicitly abolished the long-standing doctrine of inextricable intertwinement as a basis of admissibility for other bad acts evidence. The court held in United States v. Gorman that the doctrine had "become overused, vague, and quite unhelpful" and as such, "has outlived its usefulness." The court eliminated this basis of admissibility in favor of the exclusive use of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Although the two bases have different origins and initial purposes, by virtue of confusion and realities of the judicial system, the bases have come to …

Fact-Finding Without Facts, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Discoverability Of Private Investigator Surveillance In South Carolina: Navigating The Work Product Doctrine Under Samples V. Mitchell, Bradford J. Gower

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should A Scintilla Be Enough - The Proper Standard For Summary Judgment In South Carolina, Aaron J. Hayes

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are We There Yet: Gatekeepers, Daubert, And An Analysis Of State V. White, Mark R. Nash

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence As Foreign Law, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Most contemporary debates about scientific evidence focus on admissibility under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. That bias is quite understandable-after all, it is the framework imposed by the United States Supreme Court. Daubert, however, rests on a fundamental assumption: that courts should treat scientific facts like any other adjudicative facts ultimately left to the jury. Perhaps the involvement of specialized knowledge requires judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure some basic level of reliability, but under Daubert, scientific facts are still just facts. As I will argue, scientific facts fit awkwardly into the conventional framework for conceptualizing and …

The First Complaint: An Approach To The Admission Of Child-Hearsay Statements Under The Alaska Rules Of Evidence, John J. Gochnour

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribe V. Gobert, 2009-C-1143 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., May 19, 2010), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. The Defendant claimed his right to due process was denied under the Blackfeet Laws and Order Code. The Court found that the Tribe failed to respond to the Defendant’s appeal.

Economics Perspective On The Exclusionary Rule And Deterrence, An, Michael D. Cicchini

Missouri Law Review

This Article will demonstrate that the exclusionary rule does not and cannot deter police misconduct. The reason is that the expected cost to the police of their own misconduct (p*C) is nearly always zero. More specifically, the probability that the evidence will be suppressed (p), even in cases of egregious police misconduct, is very close to zero. Additionally, even in the rare case that evidence is suppressed, the cost to the police of a lost conviction (C) is nearly always zero for several reasons: first, the police tend to value arrests, not convictions; second, even if they did value convictions, …

The Dance Of Death Or (Almost) No One Here Gets Out Alive: The Fourth Circuit's Capital Punishment Jurisprudence, John H. Blume

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lefkoe V. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., Joshua Bennett

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Vankesteren, Stephen Wills Murphy

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where And How To Draw The Line Between Reasonable Corporal Punishment And Abuse, Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Kenneth A. Dodge, Sarah Keeton Campbell

Law and Contemporary Problems

No abstract provided.

Clarifying Causation In Tort, Erik S. Knutsen

Dalhousie Law Journal

This article argues that there is nothing overly confusing about the law ofcausation in negligence. It attempts to define the current state of causation in Canadian negligence law with a simple goal in mind: to have a clearer more productive conversation about the law with the fundamental concepts clearly on the table. The author argues that while the leading decisions on causation are often couched in broad-based, universal terminology to refrain from inhibiting conceptual portability,the cases can be read as a sustained continuum of conversations about causation. A cohesive framework for the law is offered by taking a longitudinal perspective …

Individualization Claims In Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Jonathan Koehler, Michael J. Saks

Faculty Working Papers

In a 2008 paper published in the Vanderbilt Law Review entitled "The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence," we argued that no scientific basis exists for the proposition that forensic scientists can "individualize" an unknown marking (such as a fingerprint, tire track, or handwriting sample) to a particular person or object to the exclusion of all others in the world. In this special issue of the Brooklyn Law Review, we clarify, refine, and extend some of the ideas presented in Fallacy. Some of the refinements are prompted by Professor David Kaye's paper, also in this issue of the Review, in …

"You Crossed The Fog Line!"—Kansas, Pretext, And The Fourth Amendment, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

In Whren, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned pretextual traffic stops. In practice the holding of Whren condones police investigations that target certain suspect classes of people, like Hispanics, for increased police scrutiny. In permitting pretextual stops, the Court ignored the risk that such practices will encourage police to distort the truth, overlooked the cost of under-enforcement of the laws, and ignored the consequences to the criminal justice system of race and ethnicity based discrimination.

Kansas law exacerbates these risks by making fog-line stops a model for protecting ulterior motives from a sifting judicial inquiry. In Kansas, it makes …

An Exclusionary Rule For Police Lies, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Our legal system treats the police as if they are impartial fact gatherers, trained and motivated to gather facts both for and against guilt, rather than biased advocates attempting to disprove innocence, which is the reality. Because of its partiality in favor of officers, the criminal justice system lacks the appropriate structure to expose and effectively deter police lies, which distort the truth about criminal or unconstitutional conduct.

This Article, presented in three parts, argues that the current system should be changed to provide the structure necessary to promote honest police work. Specifically, it urges a modification to the exclusionary …

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Faculty Working Papers

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

The Future Of Inadvertent Disclosure: The Lingering Need To Revise Professional Conduct Rules, Paula Schaefer

Scholarly Works

In recent years, the American Bar Association and state bars have deferred to lawmakers to create a legal solution to the problems associated with inadvertent disclosure. When Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was enacted in September 2008, lawmakers and commentators praised the new rule as a remedy to costly pre-production privilege review and as an answer to the uncertainties of waiver law.

This article examines the numerous inadvertent disclosure issues that remain unanswered for litigators and transactional attorneys, and considers the new problems created by Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2009, transactional attorneys have no practical means to obtain …

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

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 …

Scientific Fraud, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Although scientific fraud is rare, when it occurs, it needs to be identified and documented. This article discusses two of the most notorious cases in forensic science. Part I focuses on the misconduct of Fred Zain, a serologist with the West Virginia State Police crime laboratory and later with the County Medical Examiner’s laboratory in San Antonio, Texas. Part II examines the misconduct of Joyce Gilchrist, a forensic examiner with the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Adverse Inference About Adverse Inferences: Restructuring Juridical Roles For Responding To Evidence Tampering By Parties To Litigation, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

For at least two centuries, Anglo-American courts have responded to a party's evidence tampering by allowing the opponent to argue to jurors that they should draw an adverse inference against the offending party in deciding the merits of the case. This Article argues that the use of such inferences, and invitations to draw them, should be radically curtailed, not only because of the ambiguities and risks of prejudice that such inferences entail, but more importantly because they reflect and contribute to a confusion of roles in which the jury is enlisted to participate in the management of the pre-trial conduct …

Coconspirators, “Coventurers,” And The Exception Swallowing The Hearsay Rule, Ben L. Trachtenberg

Faculty Publications

In recent years, prosecutors - sometimes with the blessing of courts - have argued that when proving the existence of a “conspiracy” to justify admission of evidence under the Coconspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule, they need show only that the declarant and the defendant were “coventurers” with a common purpose, not coconspirators with an illegal purpose. Indeed, government briefs and court decisions specifically disclaim the need to show any wrongful goal whatsoever. This Article contends that such a reading of the Exception is mistaken and undesirable. Conducted for this article, a survey of thousands of court decisions, including the …

The Reduction Of Regulatory Uncertainty: Evidence From Transfer Pricing Policy, Andrew B. Whitford

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Stepping Out Of The Vehicle: The Potential Of Arizona V. Gant To End Automatic Searches Incident To Arrest Beyond The Vehicular Context , Angad Singh

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.