Evidence Commons^™

The French Huissier As A Model For U.S. Civil Procedure Reform, Robert W. Emerson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Huissiers de justice serve multiple roles in the French legal system. One is that of a court officer who compiles dossiers (reports). In that role, the huissier is d'audiencier (literally translated as "hearing" or "assisting") and works directly for the court system itself.

The huissier's report remains alien to the American lawyer, who is steeped in notions of procedure and "testimonialism" and in principles of fairness which appear ancient, but are rather modern dissimulations of law and equity's rich history in the American tradition. An important aspect of most legal processes, the collection of data in preparation for litigation is …

The Unblinking Eye Turns To Appellate Law: Cameras In Trial Courtrooms And Their Effect On Appellate Law, Mary E. Adkins

UF Law Faculty Publications

Over the past twenty years, most American courthouses have been wired with audio and video recording equipment to enhance security and economize on court reporting costs. These in-house alterations have an overlooked consequence for appeals. The mere existence of these recordings of all courtroom occurrences will unavoidably change the way appeals are handled and reviewed.

Appellate courts will need to make new types of decisions on whether to accept the audio-video recordings as appellate records or continue the reliance on transcripts and items entered into evidence. If the appellate courts do not accept audio-video recordings as appellate records, or if …

Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

The article begins with a discussion of the historical development and jurisprudential bases for jurisdictional discovery, then analyzes the two major structural problems with the device, namely (1) the lack of any identifiable standard regarding when jurisdictional discovery will be ordered and (2) the absence of any understanding about the proper scope of such discovery. Next, the article describes the root causes of these structural inadequacies and proposes several ways to address the root concerns, relying on a new line of Supreme Court precedent (including Ashcroft v. Iqbal) as well as analogies to other common law jurisdictions. The paper concludes …

Juror Testimony Of Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations: United States V. Benally And The Obstacle Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 606(B) , Brandon C. Pond

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 Exclusionary Rule Applied To Coerced Statements From Nondefendants, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 795 (2010), Victoria D. Noel

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Photo Enforcement Programs: Are They Permissible Under The United States Constitution?, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (2010), Paul Mcnaughton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois Courts And The Law Of Miranda Waivers: A Policy Worth Preserving, 30 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 429 (2010), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

Wired: What We've Learned About Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Legality And Practicality Of Remote Witness Testimony, Fredric Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Future For Collected Prosecutorial Evidence At The International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda, Gerda Visser

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article focuses on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and its Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), emphasizing the need to balance the preservation of sensitive information with the public's right to access historical records. It highlights the ICTR's role in developing international criminal law standards and the challenges of managing its vast archive, particularly regarding witness protection, privacy, and future prosecutions. The article proposes establishing an international judicial archive with a legal reviewing body to oversee access to the OTP database, ensuring transparency while safeguarding sensitive data.

"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …

Changing Language, Unchanging Standard: From 'Satisfied Conscience' To 'Moral Certainty' And 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', Barbara Shapiro

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article explores the historical evolution of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in Anglo-American law, tracing its roots to earlier concepts such as "satisfied conscience" and "moral certainty." These ideas, influenced by Christian casuistry and Enlightenment thought, were integral to the development of legal evidence standards. The standard became a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, reflecting a shift from religious to secular language while maintaining a high threshold for conviction.

The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

This short essay is a summary of my assessment of the meaning of the "vanishing trial" phenomenon. It addresses the obvious question: "So what?" It first briefly reviews the evidence of the trial's decline. It then sets out the steps necessary to understand the political and social signficance of our vastly reducing the trial's importance among our modes of social ordering. The essay serves as the Introduction to a book, The Death of the American Trial, soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press.

Two Decades After Beech: Confusion Over The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions In Public Records, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2009), Thomas J. Mccarthy, John M. Power

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bull’S-Eye View Of Cooperation In Discovery, Steven S. Gensler

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Reality Bites: The Illusion Of Science In Bite-Mark Evidence, Erica Beecher-Monas

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …

Business Courts And The Future Of Arbitration, Christopher R. Drahozal

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This article examines the extent to which competition from business courts is likely to impact the future of arbitration. Part II provides a brief overview of the growth of business courts in recent years. Part III sets out a structural comparison of arbitration with business courts, highlighting the similarities and differences between the two. Part IV provides empirical evidence on the relationship between the availability of business courts and the use of arbitration clauses. Overall, the evidence provides little indication that parties are switching from arbitration to business courts. The evidence is far from definitive, however, and highlights the need …

Judges Gone Wild: Why Breaking The Mediation Confidentiality Privilege For Acting In "Bad Faith" Should Be Reevaluated In Court-Ordered Mandatory Mediation, Samara Zimmerman

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note focuses on the reasons why a good faith requirement or a bad faith exception for breaking mediation confidentiality is objectionable and offers an alternative for the Florida court system that, if implemented, could mitigate such disadvantages. I will discuss "the intersection between [a] court-ordered mediation, the confidentiality of which is mandated by law ... and the power of a court to control proceedings," and persons who appear before it by sanctioning conduct that taking place in mediation. Part II of this Note will begin by providing a background to the Doe v. Francis civil case. It will highlight …

The Expanding Use Of The Res Gestae Doctrine, H. Patrick Furman, Ann England

Publications

This article provides a brief history of the doctrine of res gestae and an analysis of its current usage in both Colorado state and federal courts.

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

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substantial Evidence In The Law Of International Trade: Meaningful Judicial Review Of Antidumping Actions Or Perpetuation Of The Yo-Yo Effect?, Bryan A. Edens

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that the Court of International Trade (CIT) should have the authority to remand agency decisions with specific instructions to reach a judicially determined outcome, particularly in cases involving international trade disputes. This expanded role for the CIT is necessary to prevent unchecked executive discretion, address the inefficiencies of the "yoyo effect" (repeated remands between courts and agencies), and ensure the rule of law in international trade. The note critiques the current deferential standard of review and advocates for a more substantive and less formalistic approach to judicial review, particularly under the substantial evidence standard.

Presumptions, Inferences, And Strict Liability In Illinois Criminal Law: Preempting The Presumption Of Innocence?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2008), Theodore A. Gottfried, Peter G. Baroni

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.