Evidence Commons^™

Law And Consciousness, Charles A. Reich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory And Permissive Presumptions In Criminal Cases: The Morass Created By Allen, Shari L. Jacobson

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rock V. Arkansas: Hypnosis And The Prejudice Rule - Your Memories May Not Be Your Own, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 409 (1988), Gail Downer Zwemke

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

The New Illinois Videotape Statute In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Reconciling The Defendant's Constitutional Rights With The State's Interest In Prosecuting Defenders, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 331 (1988), Denise C. Hockley-Cann

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proving The Defendant's Bad Character, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The classic study of the American jury shows that when a defendant's criminal record is known and the prosecution's case has weaknesses, the defendant's chances of acquittal are thirty-eight percent, compared to sixty-five percent otherwise. Because of the danger that jurors will assume that the defendant is guilty based on proof that his bad character predisposes him to an act of crime, the courts and legislatures have attempted to circumscribe the use of such evidence. Some prosecutors, however, although well aware of the insidious effect such prejudicial evidence can have on jurors, violate the rules of evidence, as well as …

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prior Inconsistent Statements, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Collision Between New Discovery Amendments And Expert Testimony Rules, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The young litigator's nightmare was always the same. He was in medieval Europe, ready to engage in a sword fight with the expert swordsman representing his arch rival. After countless hours of preparation, he felt confident that he would be able to hold his own against the swordsman. But when the swordsman drew his lengthy rapier from its sheath, the young attorney pulled only a short dagger from his scabbard. Realizing that he was doomed to defeat, he tossed his dagger into the air and ran from the scene with the laughter of the onlookers ringing in his ears.

The …

Administrative Searches For Evidence Of Crime: The Impact Of New York V. Burger, Perry S. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Don't Be Cowed By Scientific Evidence: A Pretrial Primer For Prosecutors And Defense Attorneys, F. Thomas Schornhorst

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

'Comparative Reprehensibility' And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is not . . . easy to see what the shock-the-conscience test adds, or should be allowed to add, to the deterrent function of exclusionary rules. Where no deterrence of unconstitutional police behavior is possible, a decision to exclude probative evidence with the result that a criminal goes free to prey upon the public should shock the judicial conscience even more than admitting the evidence. So spoke Judge Robert H. Bork, concurring in a ruling that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches conducted exclusively by foreign officials. A short time thereafter, when an interviewer …

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …

Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View, Paula E. Hill, Samuel M. Hill

Michigan Law Review

Increases in the number of reported incidents of child abuse and sexual molestation have resulted in more and younger children becoming courtroom participants. Some courts refuse to consider the special needs of the child in this adversarial environment. Relying on questionable precedent, these courts hold that the defendant's right to directly confront the child, as well as strict compliance with evidentiary rules, overrides that child's interest in freedom from embarrassment or psychological trauma. This Note focuses on pressures felt by the testifying child and the ways in which these pressures affect her testimony; it then proposes using videotaped testimony as …

Pleading The Fifth: Record Custodians And The Act-Of-Production Doctrine, Amy Schlesinger Rich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Colorado V. Connelly: The Gratuitous Union Of Voluntariness And State Coercion, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 199 (1987), James P. Byrne Jr.

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kuhlmann V. Wilson: The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel: Government Circumvention Through Surreptitious Interrogation, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 567 (1987), Craig Dow Patton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Use Of Other Crime Evidence: A Survey Of Recent Trends In Criminal Procedure, Susan Stuart

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Edward L. Barrett, Jr.: The Critic With 'That Quality Of Judiciousness Demanded Of The Court Itself', Yale Kamisar

Articles

Barrett was as talented and as dedicated a law teacher as any of his distinguished (or soon-to-become-distinguished) contemporaries. But Barrett resisted the movement toward new rights in fields where none had existed before. At least, he was quite uneasy about the trend. To be sure, others in law teaching shared Barrett's concern that the clock was spinning too fast. Indeed, some others were quite vociferous about it.' But because his criticism was cerebral rather than emotional - because he fairly stated and fully explored the arguments urging the courts to increase their tempo in developing constitutional rights - Barrett was …

Loss Of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification And Proof Of Guilt, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

It is no news that eyewitness identification in criminal cases is a problem; it is an old and famous problem. Judges and lawyers have long known that the identification of strangers is a chancy matter, and nearly a century of psychological research has confirmed this skeptical view. In 1967 the Supreme Court attempted to mitigate the problem by regulating the use of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials; since then it has retreated part way from that effort. Legal scholars have written a small library of books and articles on this problem, the courts' response to it, and various proposed …

The Exclusionary Rule: Not The "Expressed Juice Of The Woolly-Headed Thistle", Keith A. Fabi

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

18 U.S.C. § 3501 And The Admissibility Of Confessions Obtained During Unnecessary Prearraignment Delay, Matthew W. Frank

Michigan Law Review

Part I thus argues that the admissibility of post-sixth-hour confessions is governed by Mallory, under which a voluntary confession is inadmissible if, but only if, it follows a period of unnecessary delay. Part II addresses a possible objection to this conclusion - namely, that, with limited exceptions, subsection 350l(c) renders all post-sixth hour confessions inadmissible without regard to the reasonableness of the prearraignment delay. This interpretation is derived by negative implication from the proviso in subsection 350l(c) and would require courts to suppress confessions even though there has been no unnecessary delay, and even though the confessions would be …

Interlocutory Appeal Of Preindictment Suppression Motions Under Rule 41 ( E ), Clifford A. Godiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that preindictment rulings denying 41(e) motions are not immediately appealable. Part I discusses decisions that mandate dismissal of such appeals for want of jurisdiction. Part II examines the policy rationales behind these precedents. Finally, Part III argues that an adequate remedy exists outside of rule 41(e), rendering immediate appellate review of rulings on 41(e) motions unnecessary.

Crime Without Conviction: Supervision Without Sentence, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 547 (1986), Alfred B. Teton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

Malley V. Briggs: The Court Offers A Civil Remedy For Fourth Amendment Violations On The Wake Of An Eroding Exclusionary Rule, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1101 (1986), Ellen Keefe-Garner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.

Modern Evidence And The Expert Witness, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

I Cannot Tell A Lie: The Standard For New Trial In False Testimony Cases, Daniel Wolf

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the question of what standard should be used for granting a new trial when a defendant's conviction is alleged to have been based, at least in part, on false testimony. Part I demonstrates the failure of the existing standards to strike a satisfactory balance between defendants' rights and the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Part II argues that motions for retrial based upon false testimony should be governed by a standard drawn not only from newly discovered evidence cases generally, but also from cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Part III suggests that the proper test …