Evidence Commons^™

The Hearsay Exception For Public Records In Federal Criminal Trials, Vincent C. Alexander

Faculty Publications

The hearsay exception for "public records" was recognized at common law and has been further developed in most jurisdictions by statute. The reliability of public records is said to derive from the presumption of regularity and accuracy that attends the recording of events by public officials. As with the hearsay exception for recordsmade in the regular course of a private business, the reliability of many public records is enhanced by the routine and repetitive circumstancesunder which such records are made. An additional justificationfor the admission of public records is public convenience: If government employees are continually required to testify in …

The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy

University of Richmond Law Review

The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.

Does (Did) (Should) The Exclusionary Rule Rest On A 'Principled Basis' Rather Than An 'Empirical Proposition'?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

[U]ntil the [exclusionary rule] rests on a principled basis rather than an empirical proposition, [the rule] will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium. Mapp v. Ohio, which overruled the then twelve-year-old Wolf case and imposed the fourth amendment exclusionary rule (the Weeks doctrine) on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process, seemed to mark the end of an era. Concurring in Mapp, Justice Douglas recalled that Wolf had evoked "a storm of constitutional controversy which only today finds its end."' But in the two decades since Justice Douglas made this observation, the storm of controversy has …

The Silent Revolution, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule: An Examination Of The Case Law And The Present Posture Of The Florida Supreme Court, Michael Shaw Tammaro

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Robbins, Belton And Ross: Reconsideration Of Bright Line Rules For Warrantless Container Searches, Christopher J. St. John

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note analyzes the development of these warrantless container search and seizure exceptions to furnish a comprehensive review of their justifications. The major focus is on the underlying rationale of Belton and Ross and the possible ramifications of such far-reaching warrant exceptions. The Note recommends that state courts interpret their state constitutions to allow the less drastic alternative of warrantless seizures of certain containers rather than warrantless searches as permitted by Belton and Ross under the federal Constitution. In addition, an analytic methodology for isolating interrelated yet distinct search and seizure questions is proposed. Initially, a general background of fourth …

Testimonial Immunity And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: A Study In Isomorphism, Peter Lushing

Articles

This Article accepts and will develop the Court's isomorphic theory of immunity and privilege, and will show why Portash is nonetheless correct in result. A case for a broadened view of the privilege, partially because of the availability of testimonial immunity, will be made. Apftlbaum will be shown to be incorrect in result. This Article will also analyze the problem of immunized testimony and perjury by inconsistent statement, a problem faced once by the Court but left unresolved. Finally, this Article will discuss the constitutional requirements of an immunity statute, and consider an immunity case presently pending before the Supreme …

Search And Seizure Of America: The Case For Keeping The Exclusionary Rule, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Twenty years ago, concurring in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Justice William 0. Douglas looked back on Wolf v. Colorado (1949) (which had held that the Fourth Amendment's substantive protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" was binding on the states through the due process clause, but that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule was not) and recalled that the Wolf case had evoked "a storm of controversy which only today finds its end." But, of course, in the twenty years since Justice Douglas made that observation the storm of controversy has only intensified, and it has engulfed the exclusionary rule in federal …

Federal Habeas Corpus And The Mapp Exclusionary Rule After Stone V. Powell, Philip Halpern

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Assaults On The Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith Limitations And Damage Remedies, Pierre J. Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Burden Of Proof With Respect To The Defense Of Withdrawal From Conspiracy: United States V. Read, Alan S. Fox

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Business Papers Rule: Personal Privacy And White Collar Crime, John S. Applegate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Equal Access To Evidence: The Case For The Defense Use Of Immunity For Essential Witnesses, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States V. Williams: The Good Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Patricia Walker Bass

Mercer Law Review

In an opinion with two alternative holdings, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided en banc United States v. Williams on July 31, 1980. The court first held that, because Ms. Williams' arrest was legal, the incriminating evidence found as a result of the search incident to arrest could be used against her at trial. Alternatively, the court ruled that evidence should not be excluded when it is discovered by officers acting in good faith despite the fact that they are mistaken in thinking that their actions are lawful. This note focuses on the second holding that purports to establish …

A Right To Every Woman's Evidence, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

I am indeed honored to be here with you today, honored to be joining you next year as Iowa's first Mason Ladd Visiting Distinguished Professor of Law, and honored to be giving the first Mason Ladd Lecture. The honor lies not just in the recognition you accord me, but also in the linkage to the man in whose name this recognition is given.

Reflections On Alfred Hill's "Testimonial Privilege And Fair Trial", Peter Westen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I have learned a great deal from "Testimonial Privilege and Fair Trial"-as I always do from Professor Hill's work. Indeed, he has changed my way of thinking in this area in several important respects. At the same time, I come to rather different conclusions than he regarding each of his three major topics. Part I of this article examines the problem of finding a "remedy" for testimonial privileges that violate a defendant's right to a fair trial. Part II discusses the problem of determining when a defendant is entitled to assert that the "right" has been violated. Finally, Part III …

Criminal Procedure, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Income Taxation And The Calculation Of Tort Damage Awards: The Ramifications Of Norfolk & Western Railway V. Liepelt

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams

University of Richmond Law Review

On December 31, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the landmark Privacy Act of 1974 into law. One of the key concepts of the Act is the principle of disclosure limitation, which limits the ability of the federal government to disclose the contents of per- sonal records in its possession. In the words of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, this principle "is designed to pre- vent.., the wrongful disclosure and use of personal files held by Federal agencies."

A Case For Jury Determination Of Search And Seizure Law, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In a criminal case the option to return a general verdict of acquittal invests the jury with the raw power to nullify many legal determinations, including the trial judge's ruling that a search is constitutional. While courts grudingly acknowledge the existence of an extra-legal jury nullification power, courts do not recognize any jury prerogative to determine the lawfulness of a search. The United States Supreme Court's discussion of the jury's role in interpreting and applying the fourth amendment consists of one terse statement that the legality of a search "is a question of fact and law for the court and …

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Six Years After, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect since 1975. Six years of experience is not much time in which to assess such a complex and important body of law. Nevertheless, there is now some "evidence" of the impact of the Federal Rules on the various states and circuits.

The Rules do seem to have proved successful enough to stimulate widespread imitation. Approximately half the states in the United States have or will very shortly have evidence codes patterned substantially on the Rules, even down to their numbers. Many of the remaining states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have …

Prosecutorial Discovery: An Overview, Harry G. Deitzler, Susan Klimas, Walt Auvil

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1980

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Developments In West Virginia Law: 1979

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Custodial Seizures And The Poison Tree Doctrine: Dunaway V. New York And Its Aftermath, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 733 (1980), Rosanne J. Faraci

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Adversary Model Is Bent, William T. Pizzi, Phillip S. Figa, Kenneth E. Barnhill, Jr.

Publications

No abstract provided.

Exploring The Limits Of Brady V. Maryland: Criminal Discovery As A Due Process Right In Access To Police Investigations And State Crime Laboratories, Walter H. Ohar

University of Richmond Law Review

Why not criminal discovery? This question has been posited by legal scholars and learned jurists alike since the liberalization of discovery methods under the modern codes of civil procedure. As inexact as the term criminal discovery may be and, according to its critics, as inapplicable as discovery may be in the criminal context, there is little doubt that the current trend is the expansion of that which is discoverable by either side prior to a criminal trial. In fact, criminal discovery has developed into something more than a problem of procedure to be resolved by the individual jurisdictions in piecemeal …

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis Of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems, Donald Doernberg, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

This article, based on a comprehensive empirical study of New York's computerized criminal history information system and on national surveys of similar systems, concludes that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, ambiguous or inappropriate, criminal justice officials and judges routinely use such information in making decisions affecting defendants' liberty. This practice is unconstitutional, and the article suggests ways to regulate criminal history information systems that would protect a defendant's right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

The Status Of The Third Party Confession In Virginia: In Search Of A Trustworthiness Standard, Donna J. Katos

University of Richmond Law Review

The issue of third party confessions generates great controversy. The basic inquiry is, should confessions allegedly uttered by persons other than the defendant be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial? If so, under what conditions? How much discretion should a trial judge be afforded in determining whether this evidence should be admitted to exculpate a person charged with murder, armed robbery, or rape? Should the trial judge or the jury determine the reliability of the witness, the declarant, or the content of the confession itself? These considerations, in addition to due process arguments, have troubled criminal courts, legislators, and …