Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Off-Label Neuroimaging, Jane C. Moriarty

Law Faculty Publications

The growth of neuroimaging evidence in the courtroom is consistent with the increased reliance on technical and machine-based specialties at trial. Litigants routinely seek to introduce neuroimaging evidence in both civil and criminal trials to supplement traditional medical, psychiatric, and psychological opinion testimony. A substantial portion of neuroimaging evidence is still in the developmental stage—what I term “off-label neuroimaging.” Unsurprisingly, evaluating the reliability of developing neuroimaging poses challenging questions for gatekeeping courts. Among the complex evidentiary issues neuroimaging presents for courts and litigants, this Article considers one foundational question: How should courts determine whether neuroimaging evidence is sufficiently reliable for …

Frye Is So Last Century: It’S Time For Washington To Get With The Times, Darian Mullen

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

This paper argues that Washington State should finally abandon the

Frye test for expert witnesses and adopt the Daubert test used by federal

courts and most states. It begins with a discussion of the background of

expert witnesses in the U.S. court system and its evolution through Frye.

Then, it looks at the increase in drunk driving in Washington State as a

case study for how the public depends on quality science to protect

individuals and punish wrongdoers. Through the case study, it is

apparent that Frye is an unworkable standard that should be superseded

by Daubert.

Matadamas-Serrano V. State, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 5, 2026), Mary Shamon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A district court does not commit reversible error by denying a Batson challenge at step one based on strike percentages alone, or by allowing a substitute coroner to give an independent opinion based on autopsy photographs.

Evidence And Assessing Verbatim Transcription Quality Of Black English And Standard American English, L. Alexander Walker Iii

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter explores the accuracy of private transcription services when transcribing Black English and Standard American English. Courts and lawyers in the US regularly rely on transcripts from such services, but third-party verification of their accuracy, especially with respect to their quality when faced with nonstandard language varieties, is lacking. This study draws on experimental methods to contrast the quality of transcription services offered by transcribers and AI route. The quantitative results show that transcription by humans and AI resulted in more mistakes when transcribing Black English than when transcribing Standard American English. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis reveals that these …

The Evidence Machine: Rethinking Admissibility And Privacy In India's Ai Surveillance State, Samyukta Ramaswamy

Indian Journal of Law and Technology

The proliferation of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) surveillance technologies that utilise machine learning (‘ML’) capabilities to gather and process information to derive insights about individuals has transformed the surveillance landscape by enabling governments and private entities to engage in increasingly pervasive monitoring and data-driven profiling. In India, this transformation is compounded by the presence of executive-controlled surveillance mechanisms under the legal framework of the Telecommunications Act 2023, the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules 2024, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, amongst others, which authorises wide-ranging data interception and dragnet surveillance while exempting government agencies …

Preliminary Questions Of Fact: Respective Roles Of Judge And Jury In Maine Courts, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Virtually indisputable in the law is the notion that the trial judge determines questions of admissibility of evidence. However, when admissibility depends upon the evaluation of a preliminary question of fact, both courts and commentators disagree as to whether the judge should continue to occupy the role of sole decision-maker. The intertwining of fact, the preliminary condition, and law, the admissibility decision, raises some havoc with accepted views of the judge as arbiter of the law and the jury as fact finder. If the judge determines both questions, he is resolving not only legal, but also factual issues traditionally within …

Accidental Brady Violations, Adam M. Gershowitz

Texas A&M Law Review

Prosecutors are often seen as the villains of the criminal justice system. And the most villainous thing a prosecutor can do is to commit an intentional Brady violation by withholding favorable and material evidence from the defense. Not surprisingly, there is a wide literature criticizing prosecutors for flagrant misconduct.

But not all Brady violations are intentional. Prosecutors sometimes—perhaps often—commit accidental Brady violations by inadvertently failing to recognize favorable evidence. Because many prosecutors are inexperienced, overworked, and under-trained, they do not recognize exculpatory or impeachment evidence when it is in their files. Additionally, prosecutors also fail to disclose evidence that is …

The Challenge That The Advent Of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) Tools Poses To The Procedures For Determining The Existence Of The Preliminary Facts That Condition The Admissibility Of Items Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Marquette Law Review

“[A]d quæstionem facti non respondent judices; . . . ad quæstionem juris not respondent juratores.” Judges do not answer questions of fact; jurors do not answer questions of law.

The jury is a central institution in the American level infrastructure. The Sixth and Seventh Amendments elevate the jury trial right to constitutional status. Of course, when a judge presides at a jury trial, the question that naturally arises is the division of decision-making labor between judge and jury. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court’s Apprendi v. New Jersey line of authority has expanded the jury’s authority to decide …

Virtual Court Proceedings And Their Effect On Criminal Defendants’ Rights, Hunter J. Phillips

Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review

This Comment examines whether implementing virtual evidentiary proceedings diminishes a criminal defendant’s Constitutional rights. Part One introduces the Confrontation Clause and judicial interpretations that shape its modern legal view.

Part One also introduces the importance of face-to-face testimony and how the Confrontation Clause is founded upon that principle. Part One concludes by offering psychological research that highlights the im-portance of face-to-face proceedings that allow for effective criminal proceedings. Part Two introduces legislation that hinders defendants’ Confrontation rights and critically analyzes that legislation. Part Three argues for the abandonment of virtual criminal proceedings and highlights other factors that should be considered …

The False Evidence Ploy: A Coercive, Not Just Deceptive, Police Tactic, Alexa D. Sondey

Touro Law Review

Why would people confess to a crime they did not commit? It may seem hard to imagine that an innocent person would confess but as this Note will show, false confessions are a real and serious issue. One cause of false confessions is the False Evidence Ploy - a police interrogation tactic where police falsely tell a suspect they have some sort of incriminating evidence against them. This Note argues that the Ploy is psychological coercion, as it may cause innocent suspects to believe they actually committed the crime and then confess. N.Y. Bill S324A presented a solution, banning the …

Law Enforcement Privilege, Rebecca Wexler

Michigan Law Review

You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful …

The Jury Does Not Always Need Help From Lay Opinion Witnesses, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

Who is the “reasonable person”? There is little doubt that every competent legal professional, both in law practice and in the academic setting, has spent a great deal of time attempting to define the reasonable person. “Reasonableness is largely a matter of common sense.” In police encounters, the definition is certainly important to the outcome of questionable police conduct. How the reasonable person is defined often determines whether a police officer has infringed on an individual’s Fourth Amendment guarantee to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures. As the narratives of the news media shape how some …

You Get The Jury You Get And You Don’T Throw A Fit, 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 is 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 …

A Conviction In Jeopardy: The Mysterious Case Against Scott Peterson, Jolie Bodner Zangari

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Obsolescence Of Voluntary Confessions In Maine, John C. Sheldon

Maine Law Review

The would-be assassin lurks in the crowd that gathers outside the campaign headquarters building. In anticipation of the candidate's appearance, the television technicians hoist their videotape cameras and illuminate the scene with floodlights, as the gunman nervously fingers the automatic concealed in the pocket of his field jacket. Moments later, the candidate emerges from the doorway; the assassin rushes into the floodlit view of the cameras, takes aim at the startled politician, and hollers: "I've been planning this for years, and now I'm going to give you what's coming to you." His shots ring out as Secret Service agents converge …

State V. Curlew: Assessing The Sufficiency Of Evidence Under The Corpus Delicti Rule, Brett D. Baber

Maine Law Review

In State v. Curlew, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reversed a conviction for unlawful sexual contact. The court predicated reversal upon a reaffirmation of both the substantive aspect and the evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule. The substantive aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires the state "to produce, exclusive of any confession or admission by the defendant, such credible evidence as will create a substantial belief that the crime charged has been committed by some person." The evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires proof of the corpus delicti prior to the …

State V. Durepo: Toward A Principled Maine Version Of The Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Andre D. Bouffard

Maine Law Review

As one might have anticipated, the broad substantive mandates of the major Warren Court exclusionary rule decisions have not been left completely intact by later Supreme Court decisions. Instead, the scope of the evidentiary exclusionary doctrine established by the Warren Court has been significantly narrowed by later Supreme Court decisions that have created numerous exceptions to the general command of the exclusionary rule that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Although some members of the present Court argue that the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are consistent with the purposes of the rule, and therefore …

Guess Who?: First-Time In-Court Identifications And Due Process, Natalie Beers

Washington and Lee Law Review

Juries believe eyewitnesses. When an identifying eyewitness takes the stand and points to a defendant in a courtroom, the jury is more likely to render a guilty verdict. But how reliable is that identification? What if the eyewitness is on the stand identifying a perpetrator for the first time, in the court room, rather than at the police station with a lineup or photo array? How do those suggestive circumstances implicate a criminal defendant’s due process rights?

First-time in-court identifications are inherently suggestive. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the suggestive nature of similar identifications, it did not directly address …

Authenticating Social Media Evidence In Chinese Criminal Procedure Law -- A Comparative Study, Yage Huang

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

Authentication requires the proponent to provide sufficient proof that the proposed social media evidence is, indeed, what it is claimed to be. The rapid proliferation of social media evidence has posed significant challenges for its authentication. This dissertation explores the authentication challenges for social media evidence in a comprehensive manner.

This research employs a qualitative research methodology, including theoretical and analytical methods, to examine the theoretical approaches, statutory provisions, and recent judicial rulings related to the authentication of social media evidence within the legal frameworks of China and the United States. Through a comparative analysis, this study reveals significant commonalities …

Prosecutorial Storytelling Through Intrinsic Evidence, Brian Chen

Pepperdine Law Review

Crimes make for compelling stories. So juries make for an eager audience. Jurors want to—indeed, expect to—learn what the defendant did, how they did it, and why they deserve punishment. Capable prosecutors know how to deliver. Trial narratives empower jurors to link discrete pieces of evidence and infer facts from circumstantial proof. Only then can they render a verdict consistent with their sense of justice. Federal courts thus afford wide leeway for prosecutors to present their case as they please, with the evidence at their disposal. The Federal Rules of Evidence delineates the scope of that discretion. Under Rule 404(b), …

Gender (Discrimination) Trouble, Katharine K. Baker

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Faculty Scholarship

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article posits the history of forensic-science evidence plays a significant role in the unquestioning manner of its modern acceptance. It traces early high-profile forensic science “successes” and the public reactions to them. It argues the public perception of the “advances” of forensic science continues to play a role in the lack of scrutiny given to these disciplines in admissibility decisions today. It concludes, when it comes to forensic science, history should play a different role by serving as a critical warning rather than a congratulatory buttress.

How To Alleviate The Repercussions Of Wrongful Convictions: Holistically Righting The Wrongs Of Inadequate Compensation Statutes, Marissa Cohen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Science Or Storytime? Expert Testimony Evaluating Child Witness Credibility In Sexual Assault Cases, Elizabeth I. Boals

American University Law Review

While jurors struggle with determining any witnesses’ credibility, an even more arduous task is determining the credibility of a child victim in a sexual assault case. Due to developmental immaturity, children lack important recall and communication skills, and the well-established procedures of direct and cross examination are ineffective at producing accurate and complete trial testimony. Despite the adversarial system being proven ineffective in these contexts, American courts remain hesitant to admit expert testimony based on established psychology tools. Specifically, courts have questioned the application of Statement Validity Assessments (“SVAs”), to assist jurors in evaluating witness credibility, as they believe such …

A History Of Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree (1916-1942), Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This is a history of a little-known stage within an otherwise well-known area of criminal procedure. The subject, “fruit of the poisonous tree,” explains the exclusion from trial of evidence (the fruit) derived from unconstitutional police practices (the tree). The Supreme Court first deployed the metaphor in 1939; exclusion of fruits by any other name, however, dates to before the Court began reviewing state convictions. While academic interest in the 1963-to-present phase of fruits is keen, the first quarter of what is now a century of history is taken as given, described in only the most conclusory terms. The 1916–1942 …

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 …

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 …