Evidence Commons^™

Survey Of Illinois Law: Waiver Of The Attorney-Client Privilege And Work Product Protection, 37 S. Ill. U. L.J. 825 (2013), Ralph Ruebner, Katarina Durcova

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

Effective January 1, 2013, two new Illinois Supreme Court rules clarify and limit the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection rule. Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 ("IRE 502"), which spells out the limitations on waiver, is accompanied by a "clawback provision" in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(p) ("Rule 201(p)") that details the procedural steps a disclosing party should take to successfully assert the privilege following an inadvertent discovery disclosure. Additionally, these changes clarify the mandatory duty of the receiving party. IRE 502 was modeled on Federal Rule of Evidence 502 ("FRE 502") and Rule 201(p) was modeled …

Searching For Truth In The American Law Of Evidence And Proof, D. Michael Risinger

Georgia Law Review

The ideology of the trial process puts discovery of truth
at center stage. This is made clear by the language of
Federal Rule of Evidence 102, upon which New Georgia
Rule of Evidence 24-1-1 is obviously based. Both of these
rules make the ascertainment of truth one of the two goals
of the trial (just determination being the other). However,
the term "truth" has been used in many ways in many
different contexts and traditions. What notion of truth did
the drafters have in mind?
This Article answers that question by reference to what
has come to be known as …

The Nursing Standard Of Care In Illinois: Rethinking The Wingo Exception In The Wake Of Sullivan V. Edward Hospital, Emily Chase-Sosnoff

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This note analyzes the current circuit split among Illinois courts over whether the same-license requirement for medical expert testimony applies to testimony about the standard of care for nurse-doctor communications. Part I traces the history of the problem by explaining the original same-license requirement, the Wingo exception for nurse-doctor communications, and the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan, which cast doubt on Wingo's continued survival. Part II illustrates the nature of the circuit split by describing the lower courts' three distinct interpretations of Sullivan. Finally, Part III argues that courts should apply Sullivan strictly and abandon the Wingo exception because …

Medical Evidence In Cases Of Intrauterine Drug And Alcohol Exposure , Judith Larsen, Robert M. Horowitz, Ira J. Chasnoff

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adult Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse And The Statute Of Limitations: The Need For Consistent Application Of The Delayed Discovery Rule, Gregory G. Gordon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Psychotherapist And Patient In The California Supreme Court: Ground Lost And Ground Regained, Stanley Mosk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Location, Location, Location: A "Private" Place And Other Ailments Of Georgia Surveillance Law Curable Through Alignment With The Federal System, Mary B. Martinez

Georgia Law Review

Georgia visual surveillance law prohibits any person
from observing, photographing, or recording any other
person in a private place and out of public view without
the consent of all persons observed. The rigidity of this
all-party consent requirement and the ambiguity of the
private/public place distinction leave investigators and
prosecutors in Georgia guessing as to the admissibility of
visually recorded evidence much of the time. On the other
hand, federal visual surveillance law encompasses a one-
party consent exception and is couched in terms of a
reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth

Amendment. Moreover, several federal courts have stated …

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.

Photo Enforcement Programs: Are They Permissible Under The United States Constitution?, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (2010), Paul Mcnaughton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois Courts And The Law Of Miranda Waivers: A Policy Worth Preserving, 30 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 429 (2010), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Second Chance At Justice: Why States Should Adopt Aba Model Rules Of Professional Conduct 3.8(G) And (H), Michele K. Mulhausen

University of Colorado Law Review

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists, and citizens alike cringe at the thought of their fellow citizens serving criminal sentences for crimes that they did not commit. Unfortunately, evidence sometimes emerges after conviction that would exonerate the defendant. As a result, in February 2008, the American Bar Association adopted two amendments, (g) and (h), to the existing Model Rule 3.8, which governs the conduct of prosecutors. The two amendments place an affirmative duty on prosecutors to investigate "new, credible and material evidence." If the evidence creates a "reasonable likelihood" that the convicted defendant did not commit the crime, the prosecutor must "seek …

Two Decades After Beech: Confusion Over The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions In Public Records, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2009), Thomas J. Mccarthy, John M. Power

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Expanding Use Of The Res Gestae Doctrine, H. Patrick Furman, Ann England

Publications

This article provides a brief history of the doctrine of res gestae and an analysis of its current usage in both Colorado state and federal courts.

Presumptions, Inferences, And Strict Liability In Illinois Criminal Law: Preempting The Presumption Of Innocence?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2008), Theodore A. Gottfried, Peter G. Baroni

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Harnessing The Hired Guns: The Substantive Nature Of Ohio Revised Code 2743.43 Under Article Iv, Section 5(B) Of The Ohio Constitution, Patrick Vrobel

Journal of Law and Health

Under Article IV, Section 5(B), rules of procedure that impact the substantive rights of Ohio citizens are considered far too important to be encroached upon by the judiciary. Rules affecting substantive rights, therefore, have been expressly delegated to the legislature. Because rules that regulate the competency of medical experts inevitably encroach upon the ability of a tort victim to seek redress in a court of law, such rules impact substantive rights in very real and tangible ways. As a result, the medical expert statute must control. To find otherwise would permit the judiciary to encroach upon the substantive rights of …

Access To Information, Access To Justice: The Role Of Presuit Investigatory Discovery, Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

What is the relationship between access to information and access to justice? Private parties obviously have many publicly available points of access to the information they seek in order to file a lawsuit. Lawyers can talk to their clients and other willing witnesses. Documents can be gathered. Specific statutes may sometimes permit information to be obtained before a formal lawsuit is brought. On other occasions, however, information needed or desired will lie solely within the exclusive knowledge and control of another The ability of private parties to compel the production of information, documents, or testimony before litigation rarely has been …

Expert Testimony Disclosure Under Federal Rule 26: A Proposed Amendment, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 117 (2007), Keith H. Beyler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Zoning And Eminent Domain Under The New Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Recently the Supreme Court has made it clearer that minimum scrutiny is a factual analysis. Whether in any government action there is a rational relation to a legitimate interest is a matter of determining whether there is a policy maintaining important facts. This has come about in the Court’s emerging emphasis on developing fact-based criteria for determining government purpose. Thus, those who want to affect zoning and eminent domain outcomes should look to what the Court sees as important facts, and whether government action is maintaining those facts with its proposed land use or eminent domain action.

Manson V. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding Of Eyewitness Identification, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 539 (2006), Ruth Yacona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Crawford V. Washington, The Confrontation Clause, And Hearsay: A New Paradigm For Illinois Evidence Law, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 703 (2005), Ralph Ruebner, Timothy Scahill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Price Considerations In The Market For Corporate Law, Michal Barzuza

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remedying Judicial Foot-In-Mouth Disease: Nevada's Prohibitions Against Judicial Commentary On Evidence And The Rule Of Harmless Error, Andrew F. Dixon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.