Evidence Commons^™

Confessions, Search And Seizure, And The Rehnquist Court, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

About the time William Rehnquist ascended to the Chief Justiceship of the United States, two events occurred that increased the likelihood that Miranda would enjoy a long life.

In Moran v. Burbine, a six to three majority held that a confession preceded by an otherwise valid waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights should not be excluded either (1) because the police misled an inquiring attorney when they told her they were not going to question the suspect she called about or (2) because the police failed to inform the suspect of the attorney's efforts to reach him.

Although Burbine has …

Dial-In Testimony, Richard D. Friedman, Bridget Mary Mccormack

Articles

For several hundred years, one of the great glories of the common law system of criminal justice has been the requirement that prosecution witnesses give their testimony in the presence of the accused" face to face," in the time-honored phrase-under oath, subject to cross-examination, and, unless unfeasible, in open court. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." But now a new way is developing for witnesses for the prosecution …

Proposed Amendments To Fed. R. Crim. P. 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Recently, the Supreme Court declined to pass on to Congress a proposed change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26 submitted to it by the Judicial Conference. In this Article, Professor Friedman addresses this proposal, which would allow for more extensive use of remote, video-based testimony at criminal trials. He agrees with the majority of the Court that the proposal raised serious problems under the Confrontation Clause. He also argues that a revised proposal, in addition to better protecting the confrontation rights of defendants, should include more definite quality standards, abandon its reliance on the definition of unavailability found in …

The Conundrum Of Children, Confrontation, And Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The adjudication of child abuse claims poses an excruciatingly difficult conundrum. The crime is a terrible one, but false convictions are abhorrent. Often the evidence does not support a finding of guilt or innocence with sufficient clarity to allow a decision free of gnawing doubt. In many cases, a large part of the problem is that the prosecution's case depends critically on the statement or testimony of a young child. Even with respect to adult witnesses, the law of hearsay and confrontation is very perplexing, as anyone who has studied American evidentiary law and read Supreme Court opinions on the …

Compelled Statements From Police Officers And Garrity Immunity, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professor Steven Clymer describes the problem created when police departments require officers suspected of misconduct to answer internal affairs investigators' questions or face job termination. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey, courts treat such compelled statements as immunized testimony. That treatment not only renders such a statement inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the suspect police officer, it also may require the prosecution to shoulder the daunting and sometimes insurmountable burden of demonstrating that its physical evidence, witness testimony, and strategic decisionmaking are untainted by the statement. Because police internal affairs …

The Gender Gap: Revealing Inequities In Admission Of Social Science Evidence In Criminal Cases, Janet C. Hoeffel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

Cowboy Prosecutors And Subpoenas For Incriminating Evidence: The Consequences And Correction Of Excess, Robert P. Mosteller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Miranda Does Not Prevent Confessions: Some Lessons From Albert Camus, Arthur Miller And Oprah Winfrey, 51 Syracuse L. Rev. 863 (2001), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Dna Sampling On Arrest, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

Every state now collects DNA from people convicted of certain offenses. Law enforcement authorities promote offender DNA databanking on the theory that it will identify offenders who commit additional crimes while or probation or parole, or after they have finished serving their sentences. Even relatively small databases have yielded such dividends. As these database searches uncover the perpetrators of rapes, murders, and other offenses, the pressure builds to expand the coverage of the databases.

Recent proposals call for extending not merely the scope of crimes for which DNA databanking would be used, but also the point at which the samples …

Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …

Evidence: 1999-2000 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Suggestion On Suggestion, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci

Articles

Part I of the full article briefly describes the history and current slate of research into children's suggestibility. In this part, we argue that, although psychological researchers disagree considerably over the degree to which he suggestibility of young children may lead to false allegations of sexual abuse, there is an overwhelming consensus that children are suggestible to a degree that, we believe, must be regarded as significant. In presenting this argument, we respond to the contentions of revisionist scholars, particularly those recently expressed by Professor Lyon. We show that there is good reason to believe the use of highly suggestive …

Convicting The Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Some Lessons About Jury Instructions From The Sheppard Case, Lawrence Solan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Faculty Scholarship

DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected.

At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic …

Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5

Strickler V. Greene: Preventing Injustice By Preserving The Coherent "Reasonable Probability" Standard To Resolve Issues Of Prejudice In Brady Violation Cases, Corinne M. Nastro

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mapp Goes Abroad, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler

Michigan Law Review

Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …

Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix

Mercer Law Review

In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins

Mercer Law Review

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.

Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include …

Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein

Michigan Journal of International Law

18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.

Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.

The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …

Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Article, Professors Ceci and Friedman analyze psychological studies on children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a significant degree. Studies confirm that interviewers commonly use suggestive interviewing techniques that exacerbate this suggestibility, creating a significant risk in some forensic contexts-notably but not exclusively those of suspected child abuse-that children will make false assertions of fact. Professors Ceci and Friedman address the implications of this difficulty for the legal system and respond to Professor Lyon's criticism of this view recently articulated in the Cornell Law Review. Using Bayesian probability theory, Professors Ceci and …