Evidence Commons^™

The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …

“Lonesome Road”: Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Seattle University Law Review

The protections of the Fourth Amendment on the streets and highways of America have been drastically curtailed. This Article traces the debasement of Fourth Amendment protections on the road and how the Fourth Amendment’s core value of preventing arbitrary police behavior has been marginalized. This Article contends that the existence of a traffic offense should not be the end of the inquiry but the first step, and that defendants should be able to challenge the reasonableness even when there is proof of a traffic offense.

People V. Rojas: The Expanding Concept Of Unavailability, Brian Wade Uhl

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages: An Exception To The Right Of Privacy? Coy V. Superior Court, Richard S. Fields

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Federal Rule Of Evidence 403 Is Unconstitutional, And Why That Matters, Kenneth S. Klein

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Counsel's Control Over The Presentation Of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing, James Michael Blakemore

Michigan Law Review

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's assistance. A lawyer's assistance, however, sometimes interferes with a defendant's control over his case. As a result, the Supreme Court, over time, has had to delineate the spheres of authority that pertain to counsel and defendant respectively. The Court has not yet decisively assigned control over mitigating evidence to either counsel or defendant. This Note argues that counsel should control the presentation of mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. First, and most importantly, decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence are best characterized …

Judges In The Executive Branch And Judges In The Judicial Branch: Similar, Yet Distinct, Thomas G. Welshko

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Adverse Inferences In Administrative Hearings, John M. Priester

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

"That's The Guy!": Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(C) And Out-Of-Court Statements Of Identification, Gilbert M. Rein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doe Co., Ltd V. Doe, Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Esther Hayut

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

The Supreme Court (Justice Vogelman, Justices Hayut and Amit, concurring) granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal and ruled as follows.

The Court considered the proceedings on the premise that the provisions of section 70(e1) of the Courts Act [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984 (hereinafter – the “Act”), which refers to a “suspect” as defined in section 70(e2) of the Act “as someone against whom a …

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …

New York V. Belton: The Scope Of Warrantless Searches Extended, Glenn D. Forcucci

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in New York v. Belton, expanded the area in which a policeman may search after he has made a lawful custodial arrest. In so ruling, the Supreme Court dramatically departed from its previous holding in Chimel v. California. While Chimel limited the area of the search to the area "within the immediate control of the arrestee," Belton allowed a search outside of that established boundary, as the Supreme Court allowed the search to include the passenger compartment of an automobile which the arrestee had not occupied.

United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.

Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth

Pepperdine Law Review

On January 1, 1982, the new California drunk driving law went into effect. This law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle where one's blood alcohol level is .10 or more. The law also marks a legislative attempt to curtail the practice of plea bargaining in drunk driving cases and significantly increases the penalties imposed upon those convicted of drunk driving. This Comment will discuss the provisions of the new drunk driving law and examine its constitutionality.

Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, And The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Ben Trachtenberg

Florida Law Review

Using the example of a recent major terrorism prosecution, this Article addresses “coventurer hearsay” in the context of the ongoing Confrontation Clause debate concerning the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. Courts have recently begun admitting hearsay evidence pursuant to a revisionist interpretation of the coconspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule. Under the new “lawful joint venture” theory, a hearsay statement may be admitted as a coconspirator statement if made in furtherance of a “joint undertaking”—defined as pretty much any cooperative activity—even if the “conspiracy” is not illegal. Because this new interpretation of an old …

Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Federal Rule Of Evidence 403 Is Unconstitutional, And Why That Matters, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

It might seem at best quixotic, and at worst absurd, to assert that Federal Rule of Evidence 403-an iconic evidentiary exclusionary rule providing that relevant evidence can be excluded if it is too time-consuming or distracting-is unconstitutional. Yet, if the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution-respectively preserving the right to a criminal jury and a civil jury- are to be taken seriously, that conclusion not only is plausible, but perhaps inescapable. More surprisingly and consequentially, deep thinking about the constitutionality of FRE 403 exposes that there may be constitutional concerns with large swaths of the Federal Rules of Evidence, …

The Confrontation Clause And Forensic Autopsy Reports-A "Testimonial", 74 La. L. Rev. 117 (2013), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the landscape of legal issues involved in determining whether the presence at trial of a surrogate pathologist, whose testimony refers to a forensic autopsy report prepared by the examining pathologist and provides the foundation for the admissibility of the forensic autopsy report, implicates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. This Article concludes that the practice of surrogate testimony and admission of the forensic autopsy report, well known and often required in criminal homicide prosecutions, implicates and violates the Confrontation Clause.

Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

This piece provides the introduction for the Dreyfus affair. It gives a brief overview of the actual Dreyfus affair and outlines the articles in this volume.

Protecting The Innocent - The Need To Adapt Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws To Protect The Interests Of Third Parties In Digital Asset Seizures, Elizabeth Friedler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Psychotherapist And Patient In The California Supreme Court: Ground Lost And Ground Regained, Stanley Mosk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Victim Harm, Retributivism And Capital Punishment: A Philosophy Critique Of Payne V. Tennessee , R. P. Peerenboom

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

It Is Broken: Breaking The Inertia Of The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: Fix It, But Fix It Right - A Critique Of If It's Broken, Fix It: Moving Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, Gregory D. Totten, Peter D. Kossoris, Ebbe B. Ebbesen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administrative Replacements: How Much Can They Do?, Laurie L. Levenson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Move Beyond The Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response To Legislative Reform Efforts, Harold J. Krent

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Moving Further Beyond, Thomas M. Reavley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.