Evidence Commons^™

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 …

Judicial Gatekeeping Of Suspect Evidence: Due Process And Evidentiary Rules In The Age Of Innocence, Keith A. Findley

Georgia Law Review

The growing number of wrongful convictions exposed
over the past two-and-a-half decades, and the research
that points to a few recurring types of flawed evidence in
those cases, raise questions about the effectiveness of the
rules of evidence and the constitutional admissibility
standards that are designed to guard against unreliable
evidence. Drawing on emerging empirical data, this
Article concludes that the system can and should be

adjusted to do a better job of guarding against undue
reliance on flawed evidence. The Article first considers the
role of reliability screening as a constitutional concern.
The wrongful convictions data identify what might …

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 …

Liar, Liar, Jury's The Trier? The Future Of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment And The Court, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

Neuroscience-based credibility-assessment tests have recently become increasingly mainstream, purportedly able to determine whether an individual is lying to a certain set of questions (the Control Question Test) or whether an individual recognizes information that only a liable person would recognize (the Concealed Information Test). Courts have hesitated to admit these tests as evidence for two primary reasons. First, following the general standard that credibility assessment is a matter solely for the trier of fact, courts exclude the evidence because it impinges on the province of the jury. Second, because these methods have not been rigorously tested in realistic scenarios, courts …

A Novel Countermeasure Against The Reaction Time Index Of Countermeasure Use In The P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol For Detection Of Concealed Information, Alexander Sokolovsky, Jessica Rothenberg, Elena Labkovsky, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld

Scholarly Works

A P300 deception detection protocol was tested using simultaneous versus serial countermeasures and stimulus acknowledgment responses. Previously, P300 showed recognition and elevated reaction time identified countermeasure use. Probe-irrelevant P300 differences were significant in both countermeasure groups and control group. Detection rates were 11/12 for controls, 10/12 for serial countermeasure users, and 11/13 for simultaneous countermeasure users. Reaction time detected countermeasure use in serial responders, but not simultaneous responders. The simultaneous response reaction times were indistinguishable from controls.

Countermeasure Mechanisms In A P300-Based Concealed Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld

Scholarly Works

The detection of deception has been the focus of much research in the past 20 years. Though much controversy has surrounded one deception detection protocol, the “Control Question Test” (NRC 2003, Ben-Shakhar 2002), an alternative test, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), developed by Lykken (1959, 1960), is based on scientific principles and has been well-received in the scientific community. The GKT presents subjects with various stimuli, one of which is a guilty knowledge item (termed the probe, such as the gun used to commit a crime). The other stimuli in the test consist of control items that are of the …

Toward Ethical Plea Bargaining, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

Defendants in criminal cases are overwhelmingly more likely to plead guilty than to go to trial. Presumably, at least a part of the reason that most of them do so is that it is in their interest to plead guilty, i.e., they will receive a more favorable outcome if they plead guilty than if they go to trial. The extent to which pleas reflect fair or rational compromises in practice, however, depends upon a variety of factors, including the amount of information each of the parties has about the case. Some level of informational symmetry therefore is critical to the …

Discovery, Judicial Assistance And Arbitration: A New Tool For Cases Involving U.S. Entities?, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Limited discovery is one of the regularly cited advantages of international arbitration, as opposed to international litigation, particularly in contrast to litigation in the US. courts. Recent decisions by US. courts, however, have threatened to upend this comparative advantage. Invoking a little known US. law, 28 U.S.C. section 1782, these courts have permitted parties in an arbitration to petition for subpoenas issued by US. courts against their adversaries or third parties. Bucking the trend in the academic literature, which largely supports this development, this article opposes reading section 1782 to authorize subpoenas in support of an arbitration. Not only does …

Poetic (In)Justice? Rap Music Lyrics As Art, Life, And Criminal Evidence, Andrea L. Dennis

Scholarly Works

Courts routinely admit defendant-authored rap music lyrics as substantive evidence in the adjudication of criminal cases. In doing so, courts fail to recognize that rap music lyrics are art. Rather, judges view the interpretation of rap music lyrics as a subject of common knowledge, interpret the defendant's lyrics literally, and characterize lyrics as autobiographical depictions of actual events. In making admissibility decisions, courts must give consideration to the social constraints and artistic conventions impacting the composition and interpretation of rap music lyrics. More particularly, they must understand the commercialized nature of the rap music industry, artist claims of authenticity, and …

Gatekeeping After Gilbert: How Lawyers Should Address The Court's New Emphasis, Brian Benner, Ronald L. Carlson

Popular Media

In the world of modern trials, expert witnesses are the coin of the realm. Lawyers know that most of the time, experts are case-breakers. Their demeanor, knowledge, and presentation ability are key qualities. Accordingly, their persuasive effect on modern lay jurors makes it incumbent on judges to ensure that an expert's opinions are appropriately directed. That means not allowing an economist to testify about the medical dynamics of bone disease, for example.

Reconsidering The Medical Expert Witness System, Yunwei Jiang

LLM Theses and Essays

The expert witness is indispensable in a medical malpractice case. However, there are three main defects in the currently existing expert witness system. One is incompetence of expert witnesses. Another is professional negligence of expert witnesses. The other is dishonesty of expert witnesses. To make the expert witness system more efficient, this article examines currently existing rules and offers some proposals regarding the three issues. For the first one, the suggestion of this article is to rely on the standards of expert qualification and admitting expert testimony. For the second one, this article distinguishes expert witnesses from lay witnesses, and …

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr

Scholarly Works

The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …

Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alexander W. Scherr

Popular Media

Never make predictions, especially about the future. But in civil commitments, courts predict future behavior all the time. Judicial action here has severe results for the individual: deprivation of liberty, potentially unwanted and intrusive treatment, and the stigma of mental illness. Judicial inaction can also do harm: erroneous release can lead to injury of the person or others. Resolving these risks requires courts to find the person poses a danger to him/herself or others because of a mental illness.

The Supreme Court's Decision To Recognize A Psychotherapist Privilege In Jaffee V. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996): The Meaning Of The Term 'Experience' And The Role Of 'Reason' Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 501, Diane Marie Amann, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Scholarly Works

In Jaffee v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a testimonial privilege protecting the patient-psychotherapist relationship. Its decision is based on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which permits courts to decide novel questions of privilege in the light of reason and experience. The Court held that this rule authorized not only recognition of a new privilege, but also a privilege of a broad scope, extending to relationships between patients and licensed clinical social workers. Its decision came as a mild surprise, given a widely shared assumption that Rule 501 creates a …

Hearsay Evidence: A Comparison Of Two Jurisdictions: United States And Nigeria, Lawrence Okechukwu Azubuike

LLM Theses and Essays

Many jurisdictions have detailed rules of evidence which regulate the facts that are admissible in court. The hearsay rule is one such rule which excludes certain evidence. The hearsay rule has roots in an old common law principle and is featured in many jurisdictions today, but has endured heavy criticisms over time. This paper examines the application of the hearsay rule in the United States and in Nigeria. Both are common law countries, however, the United States’ legal system is more advanced than that of Nigeria. This comparison aims to inform and assist current reform efforts in Nigeria.

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

Scholarly Works

Debate concerning the limits of judicial power over expert witnesses remains active and in its early states. Commentators charting the course of judicial opinions observe that some of the modern 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 …

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 …

The Proper Role Of After-Acquired Evidence In Employment Discrimination Litigation, Rebecca White, Robert D. Brussack

Scholarly Works

A new defense to employment discrimination claims has gained acceptance in the lower courts. Employers who allegedly have discriminated against their employees because of race, sex or age are winning judgments on the basis of after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct. The evidence is “after-acquired” in the sense that the misconduct was unknown to the employer at the time the alleged discrimination occurred but was acquired later, often through the use of discovery devices in the employee's discrimination action. Lower courts have accepted the proposition that if the employer would have discharged the plaintiff on the basis of the after-acquired evidence, …

In Defense Of A Constitutional Theory Of Experts, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

Professor Ronald Allen honors the memory of John Henry Wigmore on virtually every occasion in which he targets an aspect of evidence law for scholarly study. As Wigmore Professor of Law, Allen has consistently afforded modern evidence specialists some of the best in provocative theory as grist for review and discussion. He now places experts in his sights, and the results are no less stimulating.

The Common Law Theory Of Experts: Deference Or Education?, Joseph S. Miller, Ronald J. Allen

Scholarly Works

What if witness testimony emerges from, or can only be understood by reference to, an experience that the fact finder lacks? Or what if the connection between what a witness says and the full import of what the witness means is so arcane that the chances are virtually zero that the jury will understand what the spoken words are intended to convey? Both cases arise surprisingly frequently in the trial of disputes. For example, the problem arises whenever a witness is not fluent in English, as it often does when the common practice of a business or trade plays a …

Experts As Hearsay Conduits: Confrontation Abuses In Opinion Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The dispute over whether litigants may use experts to run unexamined hearsay into the trial record is a microcosm of a larger debate. The larger question is whether judicial review of expert testimony should be passive, or whether the expert witness process should be marked by active judicial policing. Does the plethora of expert opinions presently being offered in modern trials merit special scrutiny by the courts?

Some scholars urge that courts must accommodate experts. Proponents of this view favor few challenges to the unrestricted rendition of opinions by an expert, whether the expert is real or self-proclaimed. Under this …

Should Michigan Rule Of Evidence 703 Be Revised?, Brian Benner, Ronald L. Carlson

Popular Media

Technical witnesses regularly assist the fact-finding process in Michigan trials. Jury or bench trials in federal and state courts routinely feature the appearance of experts. Properly policed by our courts, few forms of testimony hold more promise for advancing the truth-seeking function of American litigation. The expanding presence of experts raises hard questions. Are the Michigan rules in turn with modern needs? Should the state rule controlling the basis for expert opinion be aligned with the federal pattern? If Michigan Rule of Evidence 703 could stand revision, does proper alteration require significant additions not presently contained in either state or …

Policing The Bases Of Modern Expert Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The expanding array of scientific (as well as some not-so-scientific) specialties available as sources for testimony raises hard questions. Will courts require that the witness' opinions be reasonably based upon trustworthy data? How far must judges inquire into the practice of other experts in the same field prior to allowing the trial witness to proffer an expert opinion? How much of the expert's supporting data will be received in evidence? This Essay addresses these and other important questions affecting the scope of modern expert testimony.

Balancing Government Efficienty And The Protection Of Individual Liberties: An Analysis Of The Conflit Between Executive Branch "Housekeeping" Regulations And Criminal Defendants' Rights To A Constitutionally Fair Trial, James F. Ponsoldt

Scholarly Works

This Article addresses the issue of whether an accused person should be entitled to obtain and use at trial relevant government information or the testimony of government employees to prove his innocence, regardless of whether he has revealed in advance to his adversary his intended use of that information or the specific content of that testimony. Part I describes the federal "housekeeping" statute and the Justice Department's housekeeping regulations, which require that subpoenaed government employees not disclose evidence unless the person seeking that evidence has first summarized the requested evidence in advance, explained its intended use, and obtained permission from …

The Myth Of Conditional Relevancy, Vaughn C. Ball

Scholarly Works

[This article is intended to supersede and replace an article with the same title published by the Arizona State Law Journal. That article, in its printed form, was disapproved by me prior to publication, and did not correctly state my views on the subject.] It is the thesis of this article, which may as well be stated first as last, that: (1) the received learning of the doctrine of conditional relevancy is erroneous, being based from the start on an incorrect analysis of relevancy; (2) the doctrine is inconsistent with the definitions of relevancy adopted in the Model Code, the …

"Just Sign Here--It's Only A Formality": Parol Evidence In The Law Of Commercial Paper, Ellen R. Jordan

Scholarly Works

Part I will argue that certainty is especially important in the law of negotiable instruments, although it does not outweigh all other values. In light of the need for certain rules, this Article will consider the policy choices made by the drafters of the Uniform Commercial Code's Article 3 on Commercial Paper with respect to parol evidence. Part II will examine certain parol evidence that is admissible against even the law's most favored plaintiff, the holder in due course. Part III will focus on the Code's indirect treatment of the most troublesome parol evidence problems, those which arise when the …

Interpreting An Insurance Policy In Georgia: The Problem Of The Evidentiary Condition, Eric M. Holmes

Scholarly Works

The purpose of this essay is to suggest an analytic framework for solving a recurrent insurance problem which springs from what might be called an "evidentiary condition." These conditions can be found in most classes of insurance policies. The immodest purpose of this modest essay is to devise a line of analysis which resolves the problems raised by evidentiary conditions and affords sensitivity and protection to all the competing interests in an insurance contract. The proffered solution, which I label the doctrine of evidentiary conditions, may furnish a doctrinal bridge for reconciling the two disparate contract schools.

Attacking Jury Verdicts: Paradigms For Rule Revision, Ronald L. Carlson, Steven M. Sumberg

Scholarly Works

The rule that a juror cannot impeach his own verdict has been applied inconsistently by the courts. This article describes the majority rule, known as the Mansfield or no-impeachment rule, and examines its origin and supporting policies. It then presents minority rules, questions posed by post-verdict interviewing of jurors, and procedural problems that accompany the impeachment of verdicts. The article also analyzes the recent erosion of the Mansfield rule and suggests that an exception to the rule should be made to allow a juror to impeach his own verdict by proving that he was threatened.

"A Most Deplorable Paradox": Admitting Illegally Obtained Evidence In Georgia--Past, Present, And Future, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in Georgia criminal cases prior to 1961 and during the post-Mapp era and endeavors to assess the future admissibility of illegally seized evidence in Georgia under both federal and state law.

Claiming Illegal Electronic Surveillance: An Examination Of 18 U.S.C. 3504(A)(1), Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

This Comment will first discuss the making of claims under section 3504(a)(1), and will show that the statute should not be read to require that claims be accompanied by evidentiary support. It will then suggest that the statute should be read to encompass claims of attorney-third party conversations. Finally, the scope of the government's response to section 3504(a)(I) claims will be examined.