Evidence Commons^™

Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses how attorneys can argue against having government and public reports admitted into evidence at trial that would be damaging to their client. When this paper was done, such reports were admitted via Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). The authors argue that it is possible to challenge admission of factual findings in public reports despite various court decisions which make this difficult.

To See Or Not To See The Defendant: Expanding The Use Of Florida's Special Procedures For Taking The Testimony Of Witnesses, Glenn F. Lang

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Successful Shadowboxing: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay Declarants, The Honorable Anthony M. Brannon

Campbell Law Review

Using the nine modes of impeachment recognized by the common law, I will examine some of the possibilities for impeaching hearsay declarants. As I explore each mode, I will discuss whether extrinsic, as well as intrinsic, evidence may be used to impeach the hearsay evidence.

Videotaped Reenactments In Civil Trials: Protecting Probative Evidence From The Trial Judge's Unbridled Discretion, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 433 (1991), Elizabeth A. Savage

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Of The County Court

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exigent Circumstances Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule And Confession Evidence: Some Perspectives On Evolving Practices And Policies In The United States And England And Wales, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Character Impeachment Evidence: Psycho-Bayesian (!?) Analysis And A Proposed Overhaul, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Typically, arguments for restricting character impeachment evidence are based in part on the premise that prior crimes, at least violent crimes, generally indicate little about a person's veracity. The argument advanced here against character impeachment of criminal defendants does not rely on that premise; in fact, it accepts the premise that prior antisocial behavior, even not involving dishonesty, often does indicate a good deal about a person's general truthtelling inclination. A careful analysis of the situation of the accused on the witness stand-rather than an easy assumption about irrelevance-leads to this Article's broad conclusion that character impeachment evidence of criminal …

The Self-Incrimination Debate, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), an exception to the rule against admission of hearsay, permits introduction of public records or reports containing the fact findings of the reporter without requiring the reporter to appear at trial. These fact findings can be based upon the reporter's own observations and calculations or information imparted to the reporter from sources having no connection to any public agency whatsoever. Rule 803(8)(C) has also been used as the vehicle for presenting juries with fact findings from hearings conducted by public officials. The rule would seem to allow these fact findings even though the opponent had …

Tape Recording Conversations - Is It Ethical For Attorneys?, Charles W. Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Form And Function In The Administration Of Justice: The Bill Of Rights And Federal Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Part I critiques the Report's insistence that accurate fact finding exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the objectives of criminal justice, identifies the fundamental role of the Bill of Rights in the American political order, and situates federal habeas corpus within that framework. Part II traces the Report's historical review of the federal habeas jurisdiction and critiques the Report's too-convenient reliance on selected materials that, on examination, fail to undermine conventional understandings of the writ's development as a postconviction remedy. Part III responds to the Report's complaints regarding current habeas corpus practice and refutes contentions that the habeas jurisdiction overburdens federal dockets …

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remembering The 'Old World' Of Criminal Procedure: A Reply To Professor Grano, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I graduated from high school in 1961, the "old world" of criminal procedure still existed, albeit in its waning days; when I graduated from law school in 1968, circa the time most of today's first-year law students were arriving on the scene, the "new world" had fully dislodged the old. Indeed, the force of the new world's revolutionary impetus already had crested. Some of the change that the criminal procedure revolution effected was for the better, but much of it, at least as some of us see it, was decidedly for the worse. My students, however, cannot make the …

The Right To Evidence, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Although its theoretical basis may be disputed, nobody questions the proposition that a person charged with a crime has a constitutional right to present a defense. Presenting a defense naturally requires access to proof. Access includes not only the availability of evidence, but also its permissible use. Consider some examples: A defendant wants to testify, but his lawyer's threats drive him off the stand. A witness who might be expected to give favorable testimony for the defense appears at trial but refuses to testify. A defense witness wants to testify, but because the defendant failed to notify the prosecutor about …

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights.

The search and seizure …

The Admission Of Criminal Histories At Trial, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As part of a continuing series of studies on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investigation and adjudication, the Office of Legal Policy has carried out a review of the law governing the admission of the criminal records of defendants and other persons at trial. The results of this review are set out in this Report.

Confusing The Fifth Amendment With The Sixth: Lower Court Misapplication Of The Innis Definition Of Interrogation, Jonathan L. Marks

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines how these courts have applied or misapplied Innis, and concludes that, while many of these decisions are consistent with Miranda and Innis, too many others are not. In order to evaluate these cases, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and significance of Innis. Part I thus considers Innis and its background. Part II then examines lower court decisions applying the Innis test, dividing these decisions into six groups based on the most common factual scenarios. Because the cases deal with factually specific police practices, this method constitutes the most useful way to …

Proof And Prejudice: A Constitutional Challenge To The Treatment Of Prejudicial Evidence In Federal Criminal Cases, D. Craig Lewis

Washington Law Review

The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions the Constitution requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Professor Lewis argues that Winship governs the validity of evidence rules in criminal cases and requires that rules of evidence do not impair the reliability of criminal convictions. The author concludes that Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which permits the admission of prejudicial evidence unless the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value, violates this requirement. Rule 403 substantially increases the risk of erroneous decisionmaking and prescribes a balancing test that unconstitutionally places …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

Equivalent Deterrence: A Proposed Alternative To The Exclusionary Rule In Criminal Proceedings, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no other area of American jurisprudence is as controversial as the exclusionary rule. Rejected by all other civilized countries2 and held in contempt by much of the American public, the rule reached its zenith during the Warren Court, only to be chipped away a little at a time by the Burger Court. Indeed, if the rule is ever to die, it seems destined to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. . .

Killing Daddy: Developing A Self-Defense Strategy For The Abused Child, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Illinois' Latest Version Of The Defense Of Voluntary Intoxication: Is It Wise? Is It Constitutional?, 39 Depaul L. Rev. 15 (1989), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Needed: A Rewrite, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Proposed far-reaching changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence are of major practical significance to every lawyer involved in the criminal justice process. The proposed changes are contained in a recent report by the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section's Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Committee. The report was selected for publication in Federal Rules Decisions, 120 F.R.D. 299 (1988), because of its interest to federal practitioners and judges. More than 40 judges, lawyers, and scholars were involved in the four-year study, and experts on each particular rule acted as "reporters" to the committee on those areas.

The report …

Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Theories Of Truth Finding In Criminal Procedure: An Evolutionary Approach, John D. Jackson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.