Evidence Commons^™

A Critique Of Two Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule: The Historical Error And The Comparative Myth, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

“The great body of the law of evidence consists of rules that operate to exclude relevant evidence.” The most controversial of these rules are those which prevent the admission of probative evidence because of the irregular manner in which the evidence was obtained. Depending on whether the method of obtaining violated a provision of positive law, irregularly obtained evidence may be separated into two classes. Evidence obtained by methods which meet legal requirements but contravene some moral or ethical principle is unfairly obtained evidence. Evidence obtained in violation of a legal right or immunity is improperly obtained evidence, regardless of …

Scope Of Cross-Examination And The Proposed Federal Rules, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

In analyzing the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, the drafting work of the Advisory Committee should not be overlooked. This is easy to do when any particular rule is isolated and criticized. For the most part, the total rules package prepared by the Advisory Committee represents a commendable effort to provide a needed set of uniform rules for federal trials. The ideas contained in the new rules are almost invariably well researched. When oversights or omissions in treatment do appear, however, it is well to raise these points for discussion. Congress is reviewing the Proposed Federal Rules, and the final …

Argument To The Jury And The Constitutional Right Of Confrontation, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

Dean Carlson poses the question: When a prosecutor refers to evidence outside the record in his summation, has he thereby violated the accused person's constitutional right to cross-examine the witnesses against him? The prevailing view is that this is reversible error only if the defendant can prove that the reference was highly prejudicial.

After a full analysis of all the leading decisions--and these are largely analogous in nature--the author proposes a new rule and a new approach to this unexplored area.

False Or Suppressed Evidence: Why A Need For The Prosecutorial Tie?, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

Many United States Supreme Court decisions have overturned criminal convictions for the reason that the government employed false evidence to obtain the conviction or failed to disclose relevant evidence important to the defense. In reversing federal or state judgments, the Court often has located direct proof of wrongdoing by the prosecutor. The notorious “bloody shorts” case is an example in point. There, the state introduced as evidence a pair of men’s “blood-stained” undershorts to achieve conviction of the accused. When the blood turned out to be red paint, the Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief to the defendant because “[ilt …

Jailing The Innocent: The Plight Of The Material Witness, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

Unknown to many lawyers, American legal history is marred with numerous recorded episodes of extended imprisonment of innocent American citizens. Frequently guiltless of any offense, these citizens are held because they happen to be witnesses to a crime and are financially unable to post a bond to insure their appearance to testify at the trial of the person accused of committing it. Not simply a feature of law from a bygone era, these incidents of imprisonment continue to arise today. Occasionally, a situation occurs wherein the man accused of the crime is released on bail and spends his time before …

Highlights Of The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Scholarly Works

To prepare a draft of proposed rules, the Chief Justice of the United States, as chairman of the Judicial Conference, appointed an Advisory Committee of fifteen members. Membership is comrpised of eight trial attorneys, the former chief of the criminal appeals unit of the Department of Justice, four federal judges, and two members of law school faculties. A third academician, Edward W. Cleary, who before teaching had 11 years of active practice, is Reporter for the Committee, furnishing many of the ideas, doing or directing most of the research, and usually doing the original drafting. After three and a half …

Basic Rules Of Relevancy In The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence, Jack B. Weinstein, Margaret A. Berger

Georgia Law Review

IN evaluating the proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States Federal District Courts and Magistrates now being considered by the bench and bar, there are a number of pervasive issues in addition to specific policy and drafting decisions reflected in individual rules. Among them are: First, the question whether federal rules of evidence are desirable; second, the degree of discretion to be afforded trial judges in applying the rules; third, the relation of state to federal rules; and, fourth, the question whether distinctions should be drawn between civil and criminal cases and between bench and jury-tried cases.

Highlights Of The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence, Thomas F. Green, Jr.

Georgia Law Review

THE first reasoned analysis of the law of evidence is attributed by Wigmore to Evans' 1806 Notes to Pothier on Obligations.' This drew attention to the reasons for evidentiary rules and to the existence of a set of principles underlying them. Later Bentham's writings emphasized needed changes.Some years thereafter an able Georgia judge criticized certain aspects of evidence law. Joseph Henry Lump- kin said: "I have long been satisfied that we are too hide-bound and restricted in our practice, with regard to the admissibility of evidence." In a later opinion he added:

Truth, common sense, and enlightened reason, alike demand …