Criminal Law Commons^™

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Six Years After, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect since 1975. Six years of experience is not much time in which to assess such a complex and important body of law. Nevertheless, there is now some "evidence" of the impact of the Federal Rules on the various states and circuits.

The Rules do seem to have proved successful enough to stimulate widespread imitation. Approximately half the states in the United States have or will very shortly have evidence codes patterned substantially on the Rules, even down to their numbers. Many of the remaining states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have …

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1980

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1979

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exploring The Limits Of Brady V. Maryland: Criminal Discovery As A Due Process Right In Access To Police Investigations And State Crime Laboratories, Walter H. Ohar

University of Richmond Law Review

Why not criminal discovery? This question has been posited by legal scholars and learned jurists alike since the liberalization of discovery methods under the modern codes of civil procedure. As inexact as the term criminal discovery may be and, according to its critics, as inapplicable as discovery may be in the criminal context, there is little doubt that the current trend is the expansion of that which is discoverable by either side prior to a criminal trial. In fact, criminal discovery has developed into something more than a problem of procedure to be resolved by the individual jurisdictions in piecemeal …

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis Of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems, Donald Doernberg, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

This article, based on a comprehensive empirical study of New York's computerized criminal history information system and on national surveys of similar systems, concludes that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, ambiguous or inappropriate, criminal justice officials and judges routinely use such information in making decisions affecting defendants' liberty. This practice is unconstitutional, and the article suggests ways to regulate criminal history information systems that would protect a defendant's right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Investigative Stops In High Crime Areas, Richard A. Gonzales

Faculty Scholarship

This article questions what constitutes reasonable suspicion of criminal activity particularly within high crime area. Some of the referenced cases:

• People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 324 N.E.2d 872 (1975)
• U.S. v. Magda, 409 F.Supp. 734,740 (S.D. N.Y. 1976)
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ( 1968)
• Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 ( 1968)
• U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)
• U.S. v. Flores, 462 F. Supp. 702 (E.D. NS. 1978)
• U.S. v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir. 1977)
• U.S. v. Constantine, 567 F.2d 266 ( 4th Cir. 1977)
• People v. Bower, 24 …

Franks V. Delaware: A Proposed Interpretation And Application, Peter A. Alces

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States V. Payner, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Havens, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Failure To Relate Exculpatory Story At Pretrial Hearings May Be Used By Prosecution To Impeach Defendant's Testimony At Trial., Stephen F. White

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1978

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Co-Conspirator Declarations: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Other Recent Developments, From A Criminal Law Perspective, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

Perhaps the most important advantage available to a prosecutor in a criminal conspiracy case is the exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirator declarations. The exception is widely used and is often a significant part of the government presentation. In essence, it provides that otherwise inadmissible hearsay declarations of coconspirators are admissible at trial against the defendant so long as they were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The exception typically arises when an alleged co-conspirator declarant tells the witness (often an undercover police officer) all about the conspiracy, perhaps in the hope of attracting a …

North Carolina V. Butler, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Parker V. Randolph, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Commonwealth Of Massachusetts V. White, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Presumptive Possession Of Weapons: New York's Controversial Statute, Murray N. Caplan

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forcible Rape And Statutory Rape: The Delicate Balance Between The Rights Of Victim And Defendant, 11 J. Marshall J. Of Prac. & Proc. 481 (1978), Philip A. Oretsky

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Effects Of Corroboration Instructions In A Rape Case On Experimental Juries, Valerie P. Hans, Neil Brooks

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The rules of evidence have evolved, in the main, to protect the jury from being misled, prejudiced or confused by certain types of evidence which might be presented to it. The rules attempt to achieve this purpose by utilizing a number of techniques, which were fashioned by common law judges. First, evidence which gives rise to these dangers might be excluded from the jury's consideration altogether. Secondly, such evidence might have to be corroborated by other evidence before the jury is permitted to reach a verdict in the case. Thirdly, the judge might be compelled to instruct the jury that …

United States V. Ceccolini, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Reappraising The Legality Of Post-Trial Interviews, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1976

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule With Administrative Rulemaking, Francis A. Gilligan, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Diminished Capacity-Recent Decisions And An Analytical Approach, Robert P. Bryant, Corbin B. Hume

Vanderbilt Law Review

The concept of diminished capacity allows a defendant in a criminal case to prove, usually by presenting psychiatrists who testify that he suffered from an abnormal mental condition, that he was unable to entertain the particular mens rea required for conviction.' Although courts historically have been reluctant to admit such testimony, in recent years a growing number of jurisdictions have recognized the concept of diminished capacity. Recent decisions in Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and North Carolina, as well as recently adopted statutes in ten other jurisdictions,illustrate the evidentiary, social, and constitutional issues raised by the concept of diminished capacity. …

The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

An Evidence Code: The American Experience, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor Paul Rothstien's opening address at the Conference on Current Trends in Evidence, Dalhousie University, 26th November 1976.

Rothstein discusses the American Evidence Code, the American experience with it, and compares it to a proposed Code that Canada is considering.

'Materiality' Limits Prosecutors' Duty To Disclose Exculpatory Evidence To Defense, James K. Knight Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Agurs, the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that criminal prosecutors have a constitutional duty to voluntarily disclose exculpatory evidence to a defendant even when the defense doesn't request such evidence. The Court, however, limited the scope of this new obligation by narrowly defining the category of material evidence to which it applies. It held that the duty arises only when the exculpatory evidence is so material that had it been disclosed, its use at trial would have created a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist.

Respondent Agurs …

The Law Of Confessions - The Voluntariness Doctrine, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"A Most Deplorable Paradox": Admitting Illegally Obtained Evidence In Georgia--Past, Present, And Future, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in Georgia criminal cases prior to 1961 and during the post-Mapp era and endeavors to assess the future admissibility of illegally seized evidence in Georgia under both federal and state law.

Claiming Illegal Electronic Surveillance: An Examination Of 18 U.S.C. 3504(A)(1), Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

This Comment will first discuss the making of claims under section 3504(a)(1), and will show that the statute should not be read to require that claims be accompanied by evidentiary support. It will then suggest that the statute should be read to encompass claims of attorney-third party conversations. Finally, the scope of the government's response to section 3504(a)(I) claims will be examined.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1975-1976, Lloyd George Jackson Ii, John Burdick Koch, Alan Dale Moats, Thomas A. Vorbach

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.