Law Commons^™

Best Evidence And The Wayback Machine: Toward A Workable Authentication Standard For Archived Internet Evidence, Deborah R. Eltgroth

Fordham Law Review

This Note addresses the use of archived Internet content obtained via the Wayback Machine, a service provided by the Internet Archive that accesses the largest online digital collection of archived Web pages in the world. Given the dynamic nature of the World Wide Web, Internet content is constantly changed, amended, and removed. As a result, interim versions of Web pages have limited life spans. The Internet Archive indexes and stores Web pages to allow researchers to access discarded or since-altered versions. In the legal profession, archived Web pages have become an increasingly helpful form of proof. Intellectual property enforcers have …

A Matter Of Context: Social Framework Evidence In Employment Discrimination Class Actions, Melissa Hart, Paul M. Secunda

Publications

In litigation disputes over the certification of employment discrimination class actions, social scientists have come to play a central, yet controversial, role. Organizational behavioralists and social psychologists regularly testify for the plaintiffs, offering what is commonly referred to as social framework testimony. These experts explain the general social science research on the operation of stereotyping and bias in decision making and examine the challenged workplace to identify those policies and practices that research has shown will tend to increase and those that will tend to limit the likely impact of these factors. Defendants fight hard against the admission of social …

“Playing Chicken": An Instant History Of The Battle Over Exceptions To Client Confidentiality, Michael S. Ariens

Faculty Articles

The purpose of my essay Playing Chicken: An Instant History of the Battle over Exceptions to Client Confidentiality, is to offer a pointillist history of the recent battles between the ABA and the federal government concerning 1) when lawyers may or must disclose client confidences, and 2) claims that the federal government is attacking the attorney-client privilege. In doing so, I hope to explain how this battle is representative of the current drift in the American legal profession.

After the Introduction, the essay unfolds as follows: Section II traces the ABA’s often schizophrenic understanding of the duty of confidentiality and …

Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris holds that a Georgia police officer did not violate a fleeing suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he caused the suspect's car to crash. The court's decision relies almost entirely on the filmed version of the high-speed police chase taken from a "dash-cam," a video camera mounted on the dashboard of the pursuing police cruiser. The Supreme Court said that in light of the contrary stories told by the opposing parties to the lawsuit, the only story to be believed was that told by the video. In Scott v. Harris, the court fell …

Embracing Paradox: Three Problems The Nlrb Must Confront To Resist Further Erosion Of Labor Rights In The Expanding Immigrant Workplace, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the Supreme Court's 2002 Hoffman Plastic Compounds opinion, normally considered in terms of its social justice ramifications, from the different perspective of NLRB attorneys tasked with pursuing enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) under the conceptually (and practically) odd rubric that some NLRA employees (unauthorized workers) have no remedy under the NLRA. The article focuses on three problems evincing paradox. First, NLRB attorneys prosecuting cases involving these workers will probably gain knowledge of unlawful background immigration conduct. To what extent must the attorneys disclose it, and to whom? Second, NLRB attorneys are extraordinarily reliant on …

Reforming The State Secrets Privilege, Amanda Frost

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Special Threat Of Informants To The Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing "First Drafts," Recording Incentives, And Taking A Fresh Look At The Evidence, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Policing The Corporate Citizen: Arguments For Prosecuting Organizations, Daniel L. Cheyette

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dimond, Not Daubert: Reviving The Discretionary Standard Of Expert Admission In Alaska, Gregory R. Henrikson

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward Ethical Plea Bargaining, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

Defendants in criminal cases are overwhelmingly more likely to plead guilty than to go to trial. Presumably, at least a part of the reason that most of them do so is that it is in their interest to plead guilty, i.e., they will receive a more favorable outcome if they plead guilty than if they go to trial. The extent to which pleas reflect fair or rational compromises in practice, however, depends upon a variety of factors, including the amount of information each of the parties has about the case. Some level of informational symmetry therefore is critical to the …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eyewitness Identification Reform In Massachusetts, Stanley Z. Fisher

Faculty Scholarship

This article traces the impact of the new scientific learning upon police eyewitness identification procedures in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Over the past 25 years, experimental psychologists have devised more reliable techniques for gathering eyewitness identification evidence than have been traditionally used by police. Massachusetts has over 350 autonomous municipal police departments, plus approximately 39 college campus police departments, the state police, and the MBTA (transit) Police Department. The decision how to investigate crime rests principally with the police chief responsible for each department. How does such a system of policing absorb new, scientifically superior methods of investigation?

The Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

William & Mary Law Review

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …

A Return To The Grand Jury To Promote A Zen Zeal In Prosecutors, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

DNA evidence has freed at least 209 convicted people. Sometimes DNA evidence exonerates a person. Other times, it does not. When it does not exonerate, a prosecutor must decide whether to persist in further prosecution of the defendant. I propose a fresh, but simple, solution for prosecutors who face such choices. To protect the interests of defendants and victims, and to assuage society’s need for fair and accurate outcomes, prosecutors should represent these cases to a grand jury. The grand jury is an easily convened neutral party that can dispassionately evaluate the evidence, old and new, and determine whether a …

How To Deal With Laboratory Reports Under Crawford V. Washington: A Question With No Good Answer, Cyrus P.W. Rieck

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Improving The Reliability Of Criminal Trials Through Legal Rules That Encourage Defendants To Testify, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Reflecting a traditional bias against defendants' trial testimony, the modern American criminal justice system, which now recognizes a constitutional right to testify at trial, unabashedly encourages defendants to waive that right and remain silent. As a result, a large percentage of criminal defendants decline to testify, forcing juries to decide the question of the defendant's guilt without ever hearing from the person most knowledgeable on the subject.

This Article contends that the inflated percentage of silent defendants in the American criminal trial system is a needless, self-inflected wound, neither required by the Constitution nor beneficial to the search for truth. …

Is It Wrong To Sue For Rape?, Tom Lininger

Duke Law Journal

The title of this Article poses a rhetorical question. Of course it is not improper to site a rapist. The act of rape qualifies as a tort in all fifty states. Rape causes egregious injuries, both physical and psychological. The Supreme Court regards rape as the ultimate violation of personal autonomy. Other than homicide, no act is more plainly tortious. Yet the criminal justice system is surprisingly hostile to civil suits by rape survivors. Judges in criminal cases virtually always allow impeachment of accusers with evidence of civil suits against the alleged assailants or third parties. This Article surveys every …

Finding A Happy And Ethical Medium Between A Prosecutor Who Believes The Defendant Didn't Do It And The Boss Who Says That He Did, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The increasing prevalence of DNA testing has proven that, at times, our criminal justice system renders wrongful convictions. Extrapolating from such significant errors, we can infer that smaller mistakes also occur. Because criminal prosecution is not an exact science, like DNA evidence, prosecutors can disagree about aspects of a case-whether to reward a cooperating defendant with a sentence reduction, whether to indict a defendant under a mandatory minimum statute, and even whether a defendant is guilty of a crime. This Essay examines the tension that arises when the prosecutor handling a case disagrees with her boss about one or more …

Coordinating In The Shadow Of The Law: Two Contextualized Tests Of The Focal Point Theory Of Legal Compliance, Richard H. Mcadams, Janice Nadler

Faculty Working Papers

In situations where people have an incentive to coordinate their behavior, law can provide a framework for understanding and predicting what others are likely to do. According to the focal point theory of expressive law, the law's articulation of a behavior can sometimes create self-fulfilling expectations that it will occur. Existing theories of legal compliance emphasize the effect of sanctions or legitimacy; we argue that, in addition to sanctions and legitimacy, law can also influence compliance simply by making one outcome salient. We tested this claim in two experiments where sanctions and legitimacy were held constant. Experiment 1 demonstrated that …

Law, Psychology & Morality, Kenworthey Bilz, Janice Nadler

Faculty Working Papers

In a democratic society, law is an important means to express, manipulate, and enforce moral codes. Demonstrating empirically that law can achieve moral goals is difficult. Nevertheless, public interest groups spend considerable energy and resources to change the law with the goal of changing not only morally-laden behaviors, but also morally-laden cognitions and emotions. Additionally, even when there is little reason to believe that a change in law will lead to changes in behavior or attitudes, groups see the law as a form of moral capital that they wish to own, to make a statement about society. Examples include gay …

The Individualization Fallacy In Forensic Science Evidence, Michael J. Saks, Jonathan J. Koehler

Vanderbilt Law Review

Forensic identification science involves two fundamental steps. The first step is to compare a questioned item of evidence to an exemplar from a known source and judge whether they appear so alike that they can be said to match. The second step is to assess the meaning of that reported match: What is the probability that the questioned and the known originated from the same source?

Different risks of error are present at each step. The risk of error in the first step is that a reported match between a questioned and a known sample might not really match. Even …

Why We Should Abandon The Balance Metaphor: A New Approach To Counterterrorism Policy, Stuart Macdonald

ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law

One of the central objectives in counterterrorism policy is commonly said to be to balance the competing demands of security and liberty.

The Constable Blunders But Isnt Punished Does Hudson V Michigans Abolition Of The Exclusionary Rule Extend Beyond Knockandannounce Violations, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Bosnia V. Serbia: Lessons From The Encounter Of The International Court Of Justice With The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia, Rebecca Hamilton, Richard J. Goldstone

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article uses the recent judgment of the ICJ in Bosnia v. Serbia to highlight the potential problems that arise when international courts have to adjudicate on overlapping situations. It describes the dispute between the ICJ and the ICTY on the appropriate legal standard for the attribution of state responsibility, and finds that the ICJ’s approach in this case suggests that those keen to minimize the fragmentation of international law between adjudicative bodies should not overlook the need for consistency within those bodies.With regard to fact finding, this article raises serious concerns about the manner in which the ICJ relied …

An Uncertain Privilege: Implied Waiver And The Eviseration Of The Psychotherapist Patient Privilege In The Federal Courts, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

Twelve years ago in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the United States Supreme Court first recognized a federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege and held that federal courts must protect confidential communications arising in psychotherapy despite the "likely evidentiary benefit" of such communications. This article examines the sharply conflicting authority in the federal courts that has developed since that landmark decision on the question of whether a plaintiff to a civil lawsuit waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege merely by seeking emotional distress damages. The federal courts' inconsistent and unprincipled approaches to this question renders the privilege itself nearly illusory and …

Judicial Decision-Making, Social Science Evidence, And Equal Educational Opportunity: Uneasy Relations And Uncertain Futures, Michael Heise

Seattle University Law Review

The full extent of what the Court decided in Grutter and Parents Involved remains in some dispute. What is far more certain is that both cases continue to stir deeply held passions that help frame public and legal debates about the Court and its role in affirmative action and school desegregation disputes. Amid these increasingly raucous debates, this Article expressly side steps the many questions (and controversies) about what the Court decided in those cases and seeks to escape from the frequently politically charged and volatile context of governmental uses of race. This Article instead focuses on how the Court …

To Speak Or Not To Speak: Navigating The Treacherous Waters Of Parallel Investigations Following The Amendment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 408, Mikah K. Thompson

Faculty Works

In 2006, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules surprised many scholars when it amended Federal Rule of Evidence 408 concerning the admissibility of offers of compromise. Prior to its amendment, Rule 408 generally prohibited the admissibility of statements made during settlement talks when offered to prove or disprove liability. The newly amended Rule 408 creates an exception for statements made to government officials during settlement talks when the official is acting in a civil capacity.

The drafters of the new Rule 408 believe that statements made to private litigants during settlement talks deserve greater protection than statements made to government …

Methinks The Lady Doth Protest Too Little: Reassessing The Probative Value Of Silence, Mikah K. Thompson

Faculty Works

The syllogism goes as follows: major premise - Innocent people proclaim their innocence in response to an accusation; minor premise - Defendant failed to respond to an officer's accusation that he killed his wife; conclusion - Defendant is guilty of killing his wife. This syllogism is the basis upon which courts and lawmakers allow a defendant's silence to be admitted into evidence as proof of guilt. They reason that it is quite appropriate for jurors to infer that innocent people would proclaim their innocence and, therefore, a defendant's decision not to speak constitutes evidence of his or her guilt.

This …

Pretrial Discovery Of Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Florida “Three Strikes Rule” For Medical Malpractice Claims: Using A Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard To Tighten The Strike Zone For Physician Licensure Revocation, Laura J. Spencer

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.