Evidence Commons^™

The In/Into Controversy: Lubet Misses The Point, J. Alexander Tanford

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Condemned By Substance And Process: A Comment On “Doubly Condemned”: Adjustments To The Crime And Punishment Regime In The Late Slavery Period In The British Caribbean Colonies And “Under The Present Mode Of Trial, Improper Verdicts Are Very Often Given”: Criminal Procedure In The Trials Of Slaves In Antebellum Louisiana, Raymond T. Diamond

Cardozo Law Review

The substance of modem criminal law and the procedures through which that law is enforced are a subject of current debate. On the one hand, some call into question the use of criminal sanctions as a means of enforcing schemes of regulation meant to guarantee public welfare. By the same token, violent crime and crime that is otherwise malum in se has caused increasing levels of fear and concomitant calls for more vigorous enforcement of the criminal law. As a result, the rights that protect the accused from intrusions by a potentially tyrannical state and from arbitrary decision making by …

Should "Clean Hands" Protect The Government Against § 2515 Suppression Under Title Iii Of The Omnibus Crime Control And Safe Streets Act Of 1968?, Francis Marion Hamilton, Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Evans: Carving Out Another Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Sara Gilbert

Mercer Law Review

In Arizona v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence seized incident to an arrest, when the arrest resulted from inaccurate computer data created by court personnel. In January 1991, police arrested Isaac Evans during a routine traffic stop because the patrol car's computer indicated he was the subject of an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. While being handcuffed, Evans dropped a marijuana cigarette. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a bag of marijuana hidden under the passenger seat, and Evans was charged with possession. Upon notifying the justice court of the …

A Bludgeon By Any Other Name: The Misuse Of Ethical Rules Against Prosecutors To Control The Law Of The State, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

My objective here is threefold: (1) to explain these ethical rules and demonstrate how each is in conflict with longstanding principles of federal criminal law; (2) to explain why these rules are illegitimate, both as rules of ethics and as rules of positive law; and (3) to offer some observations on how the dispute over these rules can sharpen our thinking about the nature and proper limits of ethical rules governing lawyers.

The Clipper Chip Proposal: Deciphering The Unfounded Fears That Are Wrongfully Derailing Its Implementation, 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (1996), Howard S. Dakoff

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Instructing Illinois Juries On The Definition Of “Reasonable Doubt”: The Need For Reform, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 921 (1996), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Four Greatest Myths About Summary Judgment, James Joseph Duane

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

That's My Story And I'M Stickin' To It: The Jury As Fifth Business In The Trial Of O.J. Simpson And Other Matters, Marianne Wesson

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

As the Supreme Court has said, time and again, death is different: It is "different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice;"1 it "differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year sentence differs from one of only a year or two;"' 2 and so forth. Traditionally, this observation has justified special procedural protections for capital defendants. Justice Harlan put it nicely nearly forty years ago: "I do not concede that whatever process is 'due' an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a capital …

Introduction: O.J. Simpson And The Criminal Justice System On Trial, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Discovering Who We Are: An English Perspective On The Simpson Trial, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence: Facing The Hardest Issues, Oregon Law Institute, Paula A. Barran, Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Christopher B. Mueller

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the November 17, 1995 Program in Portland

Defending Duii Charges, Oregon Law Institute, Clarence E. Lankins, William Uhle, Robert G. Thuemmel, John Henry Hingson Iii, Erin K. Olson, Michael H. Marcus, John Powers, Nancy L. Macklin, Douglas A. Brown, Edward Jones, Frederick Lenzser

Oregon Law Institute, 1995

Course Materials from the October 6, 1995 Program in Portland

She’S Gotta Have It Now: A Qualified Rape Crisis Counselor-Victim Privilege, Euphemia B. Warren

Cardozo Law Review

This Note analyzes the justifications for a testimonial privilege for communications between a rape victim and her counselor. More importantly, it contends that a qualified privilege sufficiently protects the counselor-victim relationship and the rape victim's need for confidentiality, while at the same time securing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. This Note endorses a qualified privilege that requires a specific showing by the defendant that the information he seeks might be helpful to his case before the trial judge will conduct an in camera inspection of the confidential rape counseling records. In the in camera review, the judge will determine whether …

No Magic Formula: A New Approach For Calculating The Ten Year Time Period For Admission Of Prior Conviction Evidence, Amy E. Sloan

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609 governs admission of prior conviction evidence. Under this rule, it is easier to admit evidence of a prior conviction that is less than ten years old than to admit evidence of older convictions. The ten year period is measured from the later of either the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement.

Calculating the ten year period is fairly straightforward in most cases but becomes confusing when the witness has been confined for violating the terms of probation, parole, or some other period of conditional release. Does the confinement for violation …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Opening The Door To The Grand Jury: Abandoning Secrecy For Secrecy's Sake, George Edward Dazzo

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

The grand jury in the United States is hailed by its proponents as an indispensable buffer of protection from malicious and unfounded prosecution by the State. Critics, however, liken the investigatory body to a rubber stamp of the prosecutor, analogous to early English grand jurors who were subject to the influences of the Monarch. Criticism of the grand jury often focuses on the grand jury's potential for oppression rather than protection of the individual.' In particular, it is the secrecy of the grand jury that sparks the most debate.'

The Definition Of Hearsay: To Each Its Own, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures And The French Experience, Florence Sophie Boreil

LLM Theses and Essays

Under the American approach to criminal justice, freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance. The American criminal justice system reflects a distrust of abuse of power and an emphasis on protection of personal freedom. However, the French take a contrary approach; under French law, freedom is achieved through the State. This paper examines the protection of individuals’ rights in American and French criminal procedure. Focus will be given to tracking the police investigatory powers in each country through searches and seizures, and the impact that those powers have on individuals’ rights. This paper will assert that the police …

Incoming Drug Calls And Performative Words: They're Not Just Talking About It, Baron Parke!, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …

Self-Defense In Colorado, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Warren Court And Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Many commentators have observed that when we speak of "the Warren Court," we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1962 (when Arthur Goldberg replaced Felix Frankfurter) to 1969 (when Earl Warren retired). But when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we mean the Warren Court that lasted from 1961 (when the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio was decided) to 1966 or 1967. In its final years, the Warren Court was not the same Court that had handed down Mapp or Miranda v. Arizona.

Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …

The Crime Bill Of 1994 And The Law Of Character Evidence: Congress Was Right About Consent Defense Cases, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Roger C. Park, Ronald J. Allen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Factors For Reasonable Suspicion: When Black And Poor Means Stopped And Frisked, David A. Harris

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Daubert: Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Cardozo Law Review

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as …

The Meaning Of Daubert And What That Means For Forensic Science, Randolph N. Jonakait

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert's effect on forensic science is unclear because the opinion is unclear. The Daubert Court did start blazing a useful path by stating that before scientific testimony is admitted, the trial court must be convinced that "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ... that [the] reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." But the Court's trailblazing was incomplete and often misleading.