Evidence Commons^™

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

Eyewitness Identification, Democratic Deliberation, And The Politics Of Science, Andrew E. Taslitz

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the intersection of social science and legal policy in eyewitness identification, focusing on the role of prosecutors and the American Bar Association (ABA) Eyewitness Resolution. It argues that while social science provides critical insights to improve identification accuracy, the translation of these insights into legal policy involves normative judgments that balance competing values, such as protecting the innocent and ensuring public safety. The author critiques the limitations of internal deliberative processes within law enforcement and prosecutorial offices, advocating for more transparent and inclusive deliberative structures to address systemic errors and promote justice.

Flipping A Coin: A Solution For The Inherent Unreliability Of Eyewitness Identification Testimony, Noah A. Clements

ExpressO

By most accounts, mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. As DNA evidence frees ever more people wrongfully convicted on the basis of mistaken identification testimony, it is worth asking: “What about those cases where there is no DNA evidence?” Study after study shows that eyewitness identifications are unreliable. Courts pay lip service to the concept of reliability, but even after identifications are tainted by suggestion, very few courts actually exclude this tainted identification testimony.

And identifications are powerful. Jurors tend to believe identification testimony more than any other kind. And judges are people …

Gatekeeping After Gilbert: How Lawyers Should Address The Court's New Emphasis, Brian Benner, Ronald L. Carlson

Popular Media

In the world of modern trials, expert witnesses are the coin of the realm. Lawyers know that most of the time, experts are case-breakers. Their demeanor, knowledge, and presentation ability are key qualities. Accordingly, their persuasive effect on modern lay jurors makes it incumbent on judges to ensure that an expert's opinions are appropriately directed. That means not allowing an economist to testify about the medical dynamics of bone disease, for example.

Fixing The Constable's Blunder: Can One Trial Judge In One County In One State Nudge A Nation Beyond The Exclusionary Rule?, H. Mitchell Caldwell

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the pre-litigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of America Securities, Judge Shira Scheindlin - of the Zubulake e-discovery cases - penned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches of that …

Manson V. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding Of Eyewitness Identification, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 539 (2006), Ruth Yacona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause And Testimonial Evidence: After Two Supreme Court Decisions, Standard Remains Unclear., Alan Raphael

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

We Really (For The Most Part) Mean It!, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

I closed my petition for certiorari in Hammon v. Indiana by declaring, “ ‘We really mean it!’ is the message that lower courts need to hear, and that decision of this case can send.” The prior year, Crawford v. Washington had transformed the law of the Confrontation Clause, holding that an out-ofcourt statement that is testimonial in nature may be admitted against an accused only if the maker of the statement is unavailable and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine her. But Crawford deliberately left undetermined what the term “testimonial” meant. Many lower courts gave it a grudging …

Howerton V. Arai Helmet, Ltd. Last Dance With The Daubert-Kumho Decisions: One Step Forward From Two Steps Back, Lisa Alumbaugh Kamarchik

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Black's, Peter Tiersma

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Securing A Journalist's Testimonial Privilege In The International Criminal Court, Anastasia Heeger

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article argues that given the unique and significant contribution of journalists to uncovering and documenting war crimes, the ICC should amend its evidentiary rules to recognize a qualified journalist's privilege. In doing so, the ICC should clearly identify who may benefit from such a privilege, clarify a procedure for balancing the need of reportorial testimony against prosecution and defense interests, and, lastly provide for mandatory consultations between the court and affected news organizations or journalists before allowing the issuance of a subpoena. Such clarity will benefit not only journalists working in war zones and the ICC, but will provide …

Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Long-Term Solutions For Children In The Child Welfare System: Families For Teens, Alexandra Lowe

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article advocates for the Families for Teens Initiative, which focuses on engaging teenagers in the foster care system to identify and connect with family resources that are often overlooked. The initiative aims to prevent poor outcomes such as homelessness and incarceration by emphasizing the importance of maintaining family connections and providing normal developmental opportunities for teens.

Juror Bias Is A Special Problem In High-Profile Trials, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Scott Peterson's jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Whether he had a fair jury is a question that the appellate courts will confront as they review Peterson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. Would the jury have reached the same decisions if the case had not been so extensively covered in the media? Or was Scott Peterson condemned by media publicity? Whatever your verdict, the Peterson trial provides yet another example of the hurdles to fair trials in high-profile cases.

Evaluating Brady Error Using Narrative Theory: A Proposal For Reform, John B. Mitchell

Faculty Articles

When the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Old Chief v. United States, the Court examined Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in light of a defense offer to stipulate to aspects of the proffered prosecution evidence, purportedly to lessen their prejudicial impact. At the core of the opinion rests the validation of a theory born from such disparate fields as Law and Literature, Sociology, and Narrative Theory. This article argues that, though it was not on the proverbial radar screen of the Court when it decided Old Chief, narrative theory provides the most effective tool available for assessing prejudice …

Grappling With The Meaning Of 'Testimonial', Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington, has adopted a testimonial approach to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Under this approach, a statement that is deemed to be testimonial in nature may not be introduced at trial against an accused unless he has had an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement and that person is unavailable to testify at trial. If a statement is not deemed to be testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause poses little if any obstacle to its admission.2 A great deal therefore now rides on the meaning of the word "testimonial."

Electronic Discovery Sanctions In The Twenty-First Century, Shira A. Scheindlin, Kachana Wangkeo

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

At the federal level, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee has responded to the "unique and necessary feature of computer systems--the automatic recycling, overwriting, and alteration of electronically stored information"--with a proposed amendment to Rule 37. The proposed Rule 37(f) would shield litigants from sanctions for the destruction of electronic data if the party "took reasonable steps to preserve the information after it knew or should have known the information was discoverable in the action" and "the failure resulted from the loss of the information because of the routine operation of the party's electronic information system." The safe harbor provision would …

Pleas For Dna Testing: Why Lawmakers Should Amend State Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes To Apply To Prisoners Who Pled Guilty, Daina Borteck

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remaining Silent: A Right With Consequences, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 649 (2004), Jeffrey D. Waltuck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are Your Eyes Deceiving You?: The Evidentiary Crisis Regarding The Admissibility Of Computer Generated Evidence, Betsy S. Fiedler

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Role Of Expert Testimony Regarding The Reliability Of Eyewitness Identifications In New York, Scott Woller

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Face To Face With The Right Of Confrontation, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

This article is an edited excerpt from the amicus curiae brief filed in Crawford v. Washington, heard before the United States Supreme Court on November 10, 2003. Prof. Friedman wrote the brief for the Court.

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr

Scholarly Works

The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …

A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg

Seattle University Law Review

Part I of this Article delineates a defendant's right to present voluntariness and credibility evidence against his or her confession. This section analyzes the basic constitutional framework of how a defendant can present this evidence and describes the traditional safeguards against false confessions. This background information provides a context for the overarching issue of expert testimony admissibility. Part II provides a basic understanding of differences between the psychiatric (medical model) and psychological (social model) approach to false confessions. It then examines the types of false confession defenses used by defendants and the interrogation techniques challenged by defendants. Part III reviews …