Evidence Commons^™

Principles, Politics And Privilege: How The Crime-Fraud Exception Can Preserve The Strength Of The Attorney-Client Privilege For Government Lawyers And Their Clients, Michael W. Glenn

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Hearsay Rule As A Rule Of Admission Revisited, Ronald J. Allen

Fordham Law Review

Now to substance. To intelligently analyze what changes to the hearsay rule should be considered, one needs to examine: first, the overall objectives of the field of evidence; second, the particular objectives of the Federal Rules of Evidence; third, how well the hearsay rule advances, or retards, those objectives; and finally, the sense and sensibility of any proposed changes.

Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Simple Virtues Of The Original Federal Rule, Daniel D. Blinka

Fordham Law Review

How well do hearsay rules function under the current Federal Rules of Evidence? One issue, dormant yet pulsating beneath the surface for decades, involves the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements by witnesses. The long-standing “orthodox” rule admitted the prior statement only to impeach the witness’s trial testimony; it could not be used as substantive evidence of the facts asserted. In 1972, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Advisory Committee” or “the Committee”) proposed an innovative rule permitting all prior inconsistent statements to be used both for impeachment and as substantive evidence—a sea change in practice. Congress, …

The British Experience With Hearsay Reform: A Cautionary Tale, Mark S. Brodin

Fordham Law Review

Among the proposals being considered by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Committee”) is the scrapping of the categorical exception regime for hearsay, leaving questions of reliability and admissibility ad hoc to district court judges along the lines of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 403 and 807. Over the past decades, the British have moved toward this approach, and it is the purpose of this Article to identify the lessons that can be learned from that experience, especially with regard to criminal prosecutions and the right of confrontation.

Prior Statements Of Testifying Witnesses: Drafting Choices To Eliminate Or Loosen The Strictures Of The Hearsay Rule, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

One of the panels at the Symposium on Hearsay Reform—sponsored by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules— considered whether the federal hearsay regime should be changed to provide for greater admissibility of prior statements of testifying witnesses. This Article is intended to provide some background to the questions addressed by the panel and to consider how the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Advisory Committee” or “the Committee”) might best implement an expansion of admissibility of prior witness statements should it decide that such an expansion is warranted.

On Hearsay, Richard A. Posner

Fordham Law Review

I need to place the remarks that follow in context. And that means I need to acknowledge a number of heresies: I don’t like legal jargon; I don’t like the complexity of legal jargon; I don’t like the legal profession’s indifference to brevity; I don’t like the tendency of lawyers and judges always to be looking to the past for answers to novel questions; and I don’t consider law to be a science or remotely like a science. I want law to be simple and commonsensical and forward-looking. I take my judicial credo from a poem by the great Irish …

Rethinking The Rationale(S) For Hearsay Exceptions, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

The thirty-seven principal provisions that permit out-of-court statements to be admitted for their truth under the Federal Rules of Evidence are found in Article VIII of the Rules. There are eight provisions in Rule 801(d), twenty-three provisions in Rule 803, five provisions in Rule 804 and one provision in Rule 807 that can be relied upon to admit hearsay evidence for its truth value.

The Philip D. Reed Lecture Series: Symposium On Hearsay Reform, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

This Panel Discussion was held on October 9, 2015, at John Marshall Law School. This transcript of the Panel Discussion has been lightly edited and represents the panelists’ individual views only and in no way reflects those of their affiliated firms, organizations, law schools, or the judiciary.

Forward Progress: A New Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction For Impeachment With Prior Inconsistent Statements Will Ease The Court’S Burden By Emphasizing The Prosecutor’S, Hugh M. Mundy

Fordham Law Review

In this Article, I discuss the history of Rule 801(d)(1)(A), focusing on the origins and importance of the Rule’s restrictive language. In addition, I review the current federal landscape of pattern criminal jury instructions for witness impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement. Finally, I propose a revised jury instruction designed to clarify juror confusion while maintaining the critical safeguards for substantive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements.

Reality Check: A Modest Modification To Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Rules”) identify hearsay that is admissible, notwithstanding the classic hearsay prohibition, by delineating categories of hearsay statements that may be admitted into evidence. For example, “dying declarations” of now-unavailable declarants may be admitted in homicide prosecutions or civil cases. “Excited utterances” relating to a startling event also may be admitted for their truth. The purported justification for admitting certain categories of hearsay rests upon the inherent reliability of human statements uttered in certain contexts, as well as litigants’ need for crucial evidence to build cases.

Prior Inconsistent Statements And Substantive Evidence—Federal Rule 801(D)(1)(A): The Compromise, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court’s version of the Rule, which it submitted to Congress in 1972, would have made all prior inconsistent statements of a witness present in court for cross-examination admissible as substantive evidence. The Court’s proposal was strongly favored by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Advisory Committee”) members who drafted the Rule. They submitted it to the Court knowing that it was consistent with the approach taken by some states and favored by authorities like John Henry Wigmore, Edmund Morgan, and Charles McCormick. But the Court’s …

International White Collar Crime And The Globalization Of Internal Investigations, Lucian E. Dervan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Much has been written about the methods by which counsel may efficiently, thoroughly, and credibly conduct internal investigations. Given the globalization of such matters, however, this Article seeks to focus on the challenges present when conducting an internal investigation of potential international white-collar criminal activity. In Part I, this Article will examine the challenges of selecting counsel to perform internal investigations abroad. In particular, consideration will be given to global standards regarding the application of the attorney-client privilege and work product protections. In Part II, this Article will discuss the influence of data privacy and protection laws in various countries …

Should The Medium Affect The Message? Legal And Ethical Implications Of Prosecutors Reading Inmate-Attorney Email, Brandon P. Ruben

Fordham Law Review

    The attorney-client privilege protects confidential legal communications between a party and her attorney from being used against her, thus encouraging full and frank attorney-client communication. It is a venerable evidentiary principle of American jurisprudence. Unsurprisingly, prosecutors may not eavesdrop on inmate-attorney visits or phone calls or read inmate-attorney postal mail. Courts are currently divided, however, as to whether or not they can forbid prosecutors from reading inmate- attorney email.

    This Note explores the cases that address whether federal prosecutors may read inmates’ legal email. As courts have unanimously held, because inmates know that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) monitors all …

Electronically Stored Information And The Ancient Documents Exception To The Hearsay Rule: Fix It Before People Find Out About It, Daniel J. Capra

Faculty Scholarship

The first website on the Internet was posted in 1991. While there is not much factual content on the earliest websites, it did not take long for factual assertions—easily retrievable today—to flood the Internet. Now, over one hundred billion emails are sent, and ten million static web pages are added to the Internet every day. In 2006 alone, the world produced electronic information that was equal to three million times the amount of information stored in every book ever written. The earliest innovations in electronic communication are now over twenty years old—meaning that the factual assertions made by way of …

The Adverse Inference Instruction After Revised Rule 37(E): An Evidence-Based Proposal, Shira A. Sheindlin, Natalie M. Orr

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

The Phillip D. Reed Lecture Series: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules

The Court As Gatekeeper: Preventing Unreliable Pretrial Ediscovery From Jeopardizing A Reliable Fact-Finding Process, Daniel K. Gelb

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Architects Of Justice: The Prosecutor’S Role And Resolving Whether Inadmissible Evidence Is Material Under The Brady Rule, Blaise Niosi

Fordham Law Review

In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant’s guilt or punishment upon request.  The Court’s subsequent expansion of its holding in Brady has formed the “Brady rule,” which requires the prosecution to learn of and to disclose to the defendant all material exculpatory and impeachment information.  The Court defined “material” as information that would cause a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had it been disclosed.

Currently, a circuit court split exists regarding whether evidence is material for purposes of the Brady …

Model Draft Of A Rule 502(D) Order, Symposium Participants

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enter The Order, Protect The Privilege: Considerations For Courts Entering Protective Orders Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 502(D), Edwin M. Buffmire

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rulemakers’ Laments, Richard Marcus

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Safe? The Need For State Ethical Rules To Keep Pace With Technological Advances, Ann M. Murphy

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Horses Drink: Conceptual Change Theory And Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Liesa L. Richter

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion: Reinvigorating Rule 502, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Rule 502: The Solution To The Privilege-Protection Puzzle In The Digital Era, John M. Barkett

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shields, Swords, And Fulfilling The Exclusionary Rule's Deterrent Function, James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

When the exclusionary rule prevents the prosecution from using evidence necessary to bring a case to trial, the rule deters illegality while raising no issue about how it might interfere with usual factfinding processes. However, when a case proceeds to trial although a court has suppressed some prosecution evidence, courts need to decide the extent to which the defendant may benefit from the absence of the proof without opening the door to its admission. The exclusion of any relevant evidence raises similar questions, and courts often say the exclusionary rule is a shield from suppressed evidence, but not a sword …

Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, John E. Rolph

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Analysis of ballistics evidence (spent cartridge casings and bullets) has been a staple of forensic criminal investigation for almost a century. Computer-assisted databases of images of ballistics evidence have been used since the mid-1980s to help search for potential matches between pieces of evidence. In this article, we draw on the 2008 National Research Council Report Ballistic Imaging to assess the state of ballistic imaging technology. In particular, we discuss the feasibility of creating a national reference ballistic imaging database (RBID) from test-fires of all newly manufactured or imported firearms. A national RBID might aid in using crime scene ballistic …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …