Evidence Commons^™

Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy Settings: Social Media And The Stored Communications Act, Christopher J. Borchert, Fernando M. Pinguelo, David Thaw

Duke Law & Technology Review

In 1986, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) to provide additional protections for individuals’ private communications content held in electronic storage by third parties. Acting out of direct concern for the implications of the Third-Party Records Doctrine—a judicially created doctrine that generally eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for information entrusted to third parties—Congress sought to tailor the SCA to electronic communications sent via and stored by third parties. Yet, because Congress crafted the SCA with language specific to the technology of 1986, courts today have struggled to apply the SCA consistently with regard to similar private content sent using different …

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past decade and a half, a great deal of attention has rightfully been given to the issue of wrongful convictions. In 2003, Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck published Actual Innocence, an eyeopening treatise on the reality of wrongful convictions in the United States. In the years since, more than 1400 innocent persons have been exonerated, and a very diverse research community of attorneys, academics, social scientists, and activists has developed in response to the realization offlaws in our criminal justice system. In 2012, Brandon Garrett's Convicting the Innocent quantitatively evaluated the first 250 DNA exonerations and …

Born This Way: How Neuroimaging Will Impact Jury Deliberations, Tanneika Minott

Duke Law & Technology Review

Advancements in technology have now made it possible for scientists to provide assessments of an individual’s mental state. Through neuroimaging, scientists can create visual images of the brain that depict whether an individual has a mental disorder or other brain defect. The importance of these advancements is particularly evident in the context of criminal law, where defendants are able to dispute their culpability for crimes committed where they lack the capacity to form criminal intent. Thus, in theory, a neuroimage depicting defective brain functioning could demonstrate a defendant’s inability to form the requisite criminal intent. Due to early successes in …

Narrative, Truth, And Trial, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

This Article critically evaluates the relationship between constructing narratives and achieving factual accuracy at trials. The story model of adjudication— according to which jurors process testimony by organizing it into competing narratives—has gained wide acceptance in the descriptive work of social scientists and currency in the courtroom, but it has received little close attention from legal theorists. The Article begins with a discussion of the meaning of narrative and its function at trial. It argues that the story model is incomplete, and that “legal truth” emerges from a hybrid of narrative and other means of inquiry. As a result, trials …

Authentication Of Social Media Evidence, Paul W. Grimm, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, Melissa M. O'Toole-Loureiro

Faculty Scholarship

The authentication of social media evidence has become a prevalent issue in litigation today, creating much confusion and disarray for attorneys and judges. By exploring the current inconsistencies among courts' decisions, this Article demonstrates the importance of the interplay between Federal Rules of Evidence 901, 104(a), 104(b), and 401-all essential rules for determining the admissibility and authentication of social media evidence. Most importantly, this Article concludes by offering valuable and practical suggestions for attorneys to authenticate social media evidence successfully.

Brief Of Amici Curiae, Neil Vidmar Et Al., Connecticut V. Guilbert, Neil Vidmar, Theresa A. Newman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Incriminating Thoughts, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

The neuroscience revolution poses profound challenges to current selfincrimination doctrine and exposes a deep conceptual confusion at the heart of the doctrine. In Schmerber v. California, the Court held that under the Self- Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, no person shall be compelled to “prove a charge [from] his own mouth,” but a person may be compelled to provide real or physical evidence. This testimonial/physical dichotomy has failed to achieve its intended simplifying purpose. For nearly fifty years scholars and practitioners have lamented its impracticability and its inconsistency with the underlying purpose of the privilege. This Article seeks to …

Don’T I Know You?: The Effect Of Prior Acquaintance/Familiarity On Witness Identification, James E. Coleman Jr., Theresa A. Newman, Neil Vidmar, Elizabeth Zoeller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 502: Has It Lived Up To Its Potential?, Paul W. Grimm, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, Matthew P. Kraeuter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Reliance On Eyewitness Confidence, Neil Vidmar, James E. Coleman Jr., Theresa A. Newman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Confrontation Clause And The Hearsay Rule: What Hearsay Exceptions Are Testimonial?, Paul W. Grimm, Jerome E. Deise, John R. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Wanting The Truth: Comparing Prosecutions Of Investigative And Institutional Deception, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

Defensive dishonesty in criminal investigations has increasingly been prosecuted without standards for identifying harmful deception or other meaningful checks on prosecutorial discretion. Although they are often grouped together statistically and evaluated as comparable crimes, there is a clear distinction between investigative lies and in-court perjury. The differences between the offenses—including the standards for prosecution, the perceived victim, and the purposes of bringing charges—suggest reasons to reconsider the current approach to investigative lies such as false statements. More truth is produced, and arguably more cooperation results, when the government focuses on the quality of the information flow. The structural protections in …

The Special Threat Of Informants To The Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing “First Drafts,” Recording Incentives, And Taking A Fresh Look At The Evidence, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

Fabricated testimony by informants often plays an important role in convictions of the innocent. In this article, I examine the particularly problematic situation of defendants who are innocent of the particular crime charged but are not strangers to crime. As to such defendants, potential informants abound among crime associates, and they have a ready story line that authorities are preconditioned to accept. Independent proof, which could be an antidote, will predictably be lacking. Indeed, that the informant has exclusive, critical knowledge often leads the prosecution to offer particularly tempting deals.

I focus on the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, a …

The Phases And Faces Of The Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation James E. Coleman, Jr., James E. Coleman Jr., Angela Davis, Michael Gerhardt, K.C. Johnson, Lyrissa Lidsky, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Scholarship

This panel took place at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools ("SEALS") in July 2008 in West Palm Beach, Florida

Back To The Future: Lorraine V. Markel American Insurance Co. And New Findings On The Admissibility Of Electronically Stored Information, Paul W. Grimm, Michael V. Ziccardi, Alexander W. Major

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Softening The Formality And Formalism Of The “Testimonial” Statement Concept, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the United States Supreme Court ruled that “testimonial” statements are the core, perhaps exclusive, concern of the Confrontation Clause. The Court began a process of defining the testimonial-statement concept but did not develop a comprehensive definition. In Crawford, the Court concluded that a statement was testimonial, which was tape recorded and obtained from a criminal suspect who was in police custody, had been given warnings under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and was being interrogated by known governmental agents using what the Court termed “structured” questioning. One of the definitions the Court explicitly presented as a …

Proportionality In The Post-Hoc Analysis Of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Conor R. Crowley, Leslie Wharton

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Exculpatory Evidence, Ethics, And The Road To The Disbarment Of Mike Nifong: The Critical Importance Of Full Open-File Discovery, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case, was disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar in June 2007 principally for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence and for making false statements about his conduct. This article relates the central details of his actions and the process that led to disbarment. Its key overall insight is that full open-file discovery was the figurative workhorse and hero in the Nifong disbarment saga. That saga was itself strongly affected by two earlier death penalty cases where prosecutors also failed to provide exculpatory information to the defense. The constitutional doctrine in Brady v. …

Ethical Issues Associated With Preserving, Accessing, Discovering, And Using Electronically Stored Information, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Science, Intersubjective Validity, And Judicial Legitimacy, Richard B. Katskee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps An Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: “A Little Child Shall Lead Them”, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court radically transformed the analysis of the Confrontation Clause for hearsay, but left many specific questions unanswered. Two years later in Davis v. Washington (2006), it revisited the subject and answered a few of the unresolved issues, but again left much in doubt, apparently reorienting the focus of the testimonial definition from that of the party making the statement to that of the person receiving it. One of the areas where the new doctrine has greatest potential importance is in cases involving children, particularly cases involving physical and sexual abuse. The importance derives …

Was He Guilty As Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based On The Circumstantial Evidence From 12 Angry Men, Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky, James E. Coleman Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster - a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it …

Police Deception Before Miranda Warnings: The Case For Per Se Exclusion Of An Entirely Unjustified Practice At A Particularly Sensitive Moment, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This essay focuses on the limits of deception practiced before the suspect waives his or her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In Miranda, the Court stated: [A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the suspect did not voluntarily waive his privilege. The quotation appears to forbid any evidence of threats, tricks, or cajolery, which contributes to a waiver of the privilege, creating a per se exclusion. However, in Moran v. Burbine (1986), the Court shifts focus away from the nature of the police conduct to its effect on …

Evidence History, The New Trace Evidence And Rumblings In The Future Of Proof, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

This paper is in two parts. The first part is about developments in the rules of evidence and particularly about developments in the federal rules of evidence, which has had a major impact on evidence rules in many states. This part turns out to be largely about the past because my sense is that the impact of changes in the formal rules of evidence, which were substantial, are largely historic. To be sure future changes in the formal rules, particularly those that may be made as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004) that dramatically …

Case Comment, Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The definition that the Supreme Court ultimately gives to the concept of testimonial statements will obviously be of critical importance in determining whether the new Confrontation Clause analysis adopted by Crawford affects only a few core statements or applies to a broader group of accusatorial statements knowingly made to government officials and perhaps private individuals at arm's length from the speaker. I contend that the broader definition is more consistent with the anti-inquisitorial roots of the Confrontation Clause when that provision is applied in the modern world. If my sense of the proper scope of the clause is roughly correct, …

Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witnesses, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the United States Supreme Court radically altered Confrontation Clause analysis for the admission of hearsay statements. It created a very firm rule of actual confrontation for a narrowed class of covered hearsay, termed “testimonial statements,” and created only a limited number of exceptions. This new regime differed dramatically from the trustworthiness/reliability mode of analysis of Ohio v. Roberts (1980), which provided very wide but incredibly shallow protection against the admission of hearsay offered by the prosecution against the defendant. This article analyzes the basic teachings and uncertainties left in the wake of Crawford, sifting through …