Evidence Commons^™

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

During the survey year, according to a Westlaw search, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rendered 2252 opinions. However, only 375 of these opinions were "published," which is consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's recent trend of sharply limiting the number of published decisions. The court's view on this issue is illustrated by Internal Operating Procedure ("IOP") 5 in Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2:

The unlimited proliferation of published opinions is undesirable because it tends to impair the development of the cohesive body of law. To meet this serious problem it is declared to be the basic policy …

Preventing And Reducing Costs And Burdens Associated With E-Discovery: The 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Jessica Debono

Mercer Law Review

On December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules") regarding the discovery of electronically stored information went into effect. This form of discovery is referred to as ediscovery. The 2006 amendments have significant effect on the obligations and responsibilities of parties, their lawyers, and the courts when dealing with discovery of electronically stored information. Specifically, the 2006 amendments affect how companies maintain, preserve, and produce electronically stored information. First, electronically stored information is now included in permissible discovery. Second, parties are required to "meet and confer" about the discovery of electronically stored information at the …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The most significant news during the current survey period continued to be the judiciary's efforts to come to terms with the "tort reform" legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2005, particularly Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") section 24-9-67.1, which purports to adopt, more or less, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

As discussed below, it is beginning to appear that Georgia courts will follow a somewhat different course than that followed by federal courts in their interpretation of Daubert and Daubert's codification in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. As discussed …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Several amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence became effective December 1, 2006. Rule 404, which governs the use of character evidence offered to prove conduct, has been amended to clarify that character evidence is generally not admissible in civil cases. Apparently at the behest of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Rule 408, which addresses the admissibility of evidence of conduct and statements made in settlement negotiations, has been amended to expand the use of settlement evidence in criminal cases. This change will be particularly relevant to Eleventh Circuit criminal law practitioners in light of the court's …

Testimonial? What The Heck Does That Mean?: Davis V. Washington, Lindsay Brewer

Mercer Law Review

The 2004 United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay' statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority held that the Confrontation Clause operates to exclude out-of-court statements that are "testimonial" in nature, unless the person making the statement is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had an opportunity for cross-examination. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who concurred in the judgment, expressed concerns that the decision would lead to uncertainty in future criminal trials because the Court …

Crawford V. Washington And Davis V. Washington'S Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements To Physicians Are Nontestimonial And Admissible As An Exception To The Confrontation Clause, Tom Harbinson

Mercer Law Review

Under Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, the Supreme Court has created a new interpretation of the right of confrontation that holds out-of-court testimonial statements inadmissible without cross-examination. In order to determine if statements for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment should continue to be an exception to confrontation, this Article reviews the historical evidence cited by the Court. The Court's originalist analysis holds that the only exception for what the Court refers to as "testimonial statements" is the exception for dying declarations. This Article establishes that a significant number of confrontation exceptions existed for testimonial statements in …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The most significant news during the current survey year continued to be the major legislative developments discussed in last year's survey. Most significantly, the Georgia General Assembly, during its 2005 session, enacted Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") section 24-9-67.1, which purports to adopt, more or less, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its progeny, and creates special rules for expert testimony in medical negligence actions. In other words, Daubert has now come to Georgia and, as discussed below, there were both legislative and judicial developments regarding Georgia's new expert witness …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey year saw the continuation of what has become a clear trend in Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now studiously defers to district judges. The reason for this trend can be debated. Perhaps because most evidentiary issues addressed by the Eleventh Circuit arise in the context of criminal cases, and because Eleventh Circuit judges are more conservative today, the Eleventh Circuit is less likely to reverse criminal convictions, particularly on evidentiary grounds. Or perhaps that the …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

During its 2005 session, the Georgia General Assembly passed legislation, commonly known as Senate Bill 3, that will, if upheld by the courts, dramatically impact Georgia's civil justice system. Two provisions of Senate Bill 3 will change Georgia evidence law. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") section 24-9-67.1(f), discussed in more detail below, purports to adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , and create special rules for expert testimony in medical negligence actions. A new rule for the admission of mistake or error by medical providers …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This year's survey must begin, as have most recent surveys, with a lament over the decreasing number of noteworthy Eleventh Circuit decisions addressing evidentiary issues. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now studiously defers to district court judges. The abuse of discretion standard, which has always been the standard of review of a district court's evidentiary rulings, has become the standard of review in practice as well as in name.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

One of the more interesting things about writing evidence surveys for the Mercer Law Review for almost twenty years has been watching evidentiary rules rise and, sometimes, fall. No rise has been more dramatic than Georgia's necessity exception to the hearsay rule. Its fall, or partial fall, should be equally dramatic as a result of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, which knocked the constitutional underpinnings from underneath the necessity exception. As discussed in many prior surveys, sometimes with tentative and respectful criticism, the necessity exception, despite a few minor setbacks, has become a vehicle …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

On March 8, 2004, the United States Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Washington, rendered its most significant evidence decision in a number of years. Since the Court's 1980 ruling in Ohio v. Roberts, holding that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause does not necessarily bar the admission of out of court statements in criminal trials, federal and state courts have increasingly allowed prosecutors to use hearsay statements against criminal defendants if trial judges found that the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability. Crawford likely will bring an end to that.

As the author has often commented in surveys of …

Defining Misappropriation: The Spousal Duty Of Loyalty And The Expectation Of Benefit, M. Anne Kaufold

Mercer Law Review

In a case of first impression, SEC v. Yun, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit settled two disputed aspects of insider-trading liability. First, a duty of loyalty and confidentiality between spouses may be shown if the spouses have a history or practice of sharing and maintaining business confidences or, if in disclosing the confidential information, the spouse breaches an agreement to maintain the other spouse's business confidences. Second, in a misappropriation theory of insider-trading liability action, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") must prove that the misappropriator expected to benefit from the tip. The decision …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey period saw no dramatic developments. The necessity exception to the hearsay rule continued to catch within its net statements that, a generation ago, would never have seen the light of a courtroom day. However, there were hints that some appellate justices and judges are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the broad scope of the necessity exception. With regard to expert testimony, Georgia courts continued their refusal to adopt Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., perhaps because of a reluctance to impose on trial court judges the tremendous burden of microscopic analysis of proffered expert testimony.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey marks the fifteenth year the author has surveyed Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. This survey year saw the continuation of what has become a clear trend in Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit, and other courts, rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now carefully defers to district judges. The reason for this trend can be debated. Perhaps, given that most evidentiary issues addressed by the Eleventh Circuit arise in the context of criminal cases, Eleventh Circuit judges are today more conservative and thus …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. Criminal prosecutions for child molestation and abuse are likely the hardest cases of all. Apart from their horrific facts, they present tremendous evidentiary challenges to prosecutors, primarily because of the victims' youth. Consequently, Georgia's appellate courts have repeatedly fashioned new evidentiary rules to assist prosecutors in such cases. Whether these hard cases make bad law no doubt depends on one's perspective. Without question, however, appeals involving child molestation and abuse continue to make new law, and the current survey period was no exception.

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.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey marks the fourteenth year the author has surveyed Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. During these years there has been, in the author's opinion, an unmistakable trend-a trend that continued during the current survey period. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now carefully defers to district judges. The abuse-of-discretion standard that has always governed evidentiary issues on appeal now seems to be the standard of review in practice as well as in name.

Absent some action by Congress, the most extensive changes …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues. Most notable is the continuing evolution of the necessity exception to the rule against hearsay. During the survey period, the Supreme Court added a third prong to the test for the admission of evidence pursuant to the necessity exception, and thus seemingly narrowed the scope of the exception. However, the court also expanded the circumstances that constitute the "unavailability" of a witness. The net effect seems to be an expansion of the necessity exception.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Daubert inspired appeals again occupied much of the Eleventh Circuit's time during the survey period. As discussed in detail below, the Eleventh Circuit held in Carmichael v. Samyang Tire, Inc. that Daubert applies only to witnesses claiming scientific expertise, a decision which sent parties scrambling as they sought to avoid or to invoke Daubert. However, after the survey period, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Carmichael. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court held that Daubert applies to all expert testimony and is not limited to "scientific" testimony. The Court also …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a large number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues. Two areas in particular should be noted and are discussed in detail below. First, criminal lawyers should be aware of the supreme court's reinterpretation of Cuzzort v. State, a landmark decision creating a broad exception to the hearsay rule for prior consistent statements. Second, all trial lawyers should be aware that the court of appeals continues to flirt with the idea of requiring parties to tender expert witnesses to the court for certification that they are, in fact, qualified to render expert testimony. As in past …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Previous surveys have addressed the trend--or at least what the author perceives to be the trend--of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in recent years to defer more to district court judges' evidentiary decisions. This trend can be contrasted with the activism displayed by Eleventh Circuit judges in decisions discussed in earlier survey articles. However, the 1996 Eleventh Circuit decision in Joiner v. General Electric Co. bucked this trend and applied a very rigid level of scrutiny to a trial court decision to exclude expert testimony. During the current survey period, the Supreme Court reversed Joiner because of its …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues but no startling developments. Two areas in particular should be noted. As suggested in last year's survey, lawyers engaged in civil litigation should continue to be aware of decisions addressing the admissibility of collateral source payments and the remedies available when a party improperly injects the issue of collateral source payments. All trial lawyers, especially those engaged in criminal practice, should take note of the continued evolution of the "necessity" exception to the hearsay rule.

Perhaps the most striking development came not from the appellate courts but rather …

Glide Path To An "Inclusionary Rule": How Expansion Of The Good Faith Exception Threatens To Fundamentally Change The Exclusionary Rule, James P. Fleissner

Mercer Law Review

During recent political debates over the federal budget deficit, it became fashionable to speak of a "glide path" to a balanced budget. Advocates of a budget plan would plan certain tax rates and spending limits, factor in a set of economic assumptions, and graph a swooping path of declining deficits over several years. Needless to say, that sort of exercise in prediction does not involve the sort of odds that would inspire confidence in a gambler. The accuracy of the beguiling graph, of course, depends on whether tax and spending commitments are kept and whether a host of economic assumptions …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The survey period saw a number of cases raising significant evidentiary issues. For example, lawyers engaged in civil litigation should be aware of decisions addressing the admissibility of collateral source payments and offers to pay medical bills in tort actions. Also, the court of appeals struggled with the question of whether the forfeiture of a bond posted in response to a traffic citation is admissible in a subsequent civil action as an admission of liability. With regard to criminal law, decisions rendered during the survey period suggest that at least some members of the supreme court will be taking a …

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 …

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The publication of this, article marks the tenth time the Mercer Law Review has honored the author by asking him to survey Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. While some may argue the Review has returned to the same well entirely too many times, ten years of analyzing Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions cannot help but to give some perspective and, perhaps, even some insight into the court's decisions. In this regard, there can be no doubt that the Eleventh Circuit has dramatically reduced its level of scrutiny of evidentiary issues. In the late 1980s, it could be fairly said that the court …

The Allure Of The Illogic: A Coherent Solution For Rule 703 Requires More Than Redefining "Facts Or Data", Paul R. Rice

Mercer Law Review

In his article entitled Developing A Coherent Theory of the Structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 703, Professor Imwinkelried proposes a theory for the interpretation of Rule 703. He argues that a restrictive interpretation of the terms "facts or data" in Rule 703 would resolve the conflicts that have plagued that Rule. Professor Imwinkelried's proposal would exclude research data and other background facts from the definition of "facts or data." By his interpretation, when an expert is testifying to an opinion based on facts that have not been proven at the trial the expert witness may only rely on …

Experts, Judges, And Commentators: The Underlying Debate About An Expert's Underlying Data, Ronald L. Carlson

Mercer Law Review

Debate concerning the limits of judicial power over expert witnesses remains active and in its early stages. Commentators charting the course of judicial opinions observe that some of the modem regulatory proposals have yet to enlist official adoption. Part of the problem may relate to recognition of questions. Courts will adjudicate critical issues only when they are made aware of them. The burden of calling attention to an expert's flawed bases falls squarely on trial lawyers who must make astute and incisive objections.

In this formative period of legal development important decisions will be made. The future direction of courtroom …