Evidence Commons^™

Pretending To Upset The Balance: Old Chief V. United States And Exclusion Of Prior Felony Conviction Evidence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Donnie L. Kidd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The story of an event is often more interesting and informative than the mere fact that the event occurred. Aesop's morals would not be as captivating without the fables that accompany them. The fables tell the reader a story embodying a moral truth. On election night, the ballot tally proves which candidate won, but the voter is interested more in the story of the campaign trail that put the candidate in office rather than a naked statistic comparing voting percentages. The story gives not only the bare idea or fact; it mixes this bare idea or fact with the supporting …

"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton

University of Richmond Law Review

It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy "science," phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor's clothes of expert testimony.

State Of The Art In Montana Products Liability Law, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The United States District Court for the District of Montana recently certified an important question of products liability law to the Montana Supreme Court. United States Senior District Judge Paul J. Hatfield certified the following question:

In a strict products liability case for injuries caused by an inherently unsafe product, is the manufacturer conclusively presumed to know the dangers inherent in his product, or is stateof- the-art evidence admissible to establish whether the manufacturer knew or through the exercise of reasonable human foresight should have known of the danger?

Because the issue of the admissibility of state-of-the-art evidence in a …

Patient-Psychotherapist Privilege: Acces To Clinical Records In The Tangled Web Of Repressed Memory Litigation, Elizabeth F. Loftus, John R. Paddock, Thomas F. Guernsey

University of Richmond Law Review

The 1990s promise to be an era of mental health litigation whose outcomes that some predict will dwarf the settlements awarded recently in lawsuits over sexual improprieties between psychotherapists and their patients. One expert estimates that over 17,000 claims will be filed in the next decade, with litigation costs in excess of $250 million. These new cases emerged as therapy patients began to accuse fathers and mothers, uncles and grandfathers, former neighbors and teachers, psychotherapists and countless others of sexually abusing them years ago.

Daubert And The Quest For Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" In The Courtroom, Alexander Morgan Capron

University of Richmond Law Review

In a world that grows more technologically complex every day and in which scientific research continually expands both our understanding of, and our questions about, the operation of the natural and man-made world, it is hardly surprising that science should show up with increasing frequency in our court-rooms. Science itself is sometimes at issue, for example, in proceedings on allegations of scientific misconduct or in disputes over the ownership or patentability of technologies. But more frequently, science enters in aid of resolving a case in which a complex question of causation is at issue. To establish or rebut causation, each …

Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be …

Money Laundering And Drug Trafficking: A Question Of Understanding The Elements Of The Crime And The Use Of Circumstantial Evidence, Thomas M. Dibiagio

University of Richmond Law Review

Drug trafficking in the United States generates millions of dollars in cash profits daily. The cash generated from narcotics trafficking usually follows one of two distinct paths. Domestically, the profits are converted into usable currency by disguising the association between the cash and the narcotics enterprise. Monies not spent domestically are transferred back to the nar- cotics source or drug cartel to be enjoyed by the drug traffickers and to provide operating capital for the enterprise. This conversion and transfer process has become known commonly as money laundering.

Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite

University of Richmond Law Review

In Frye v. United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed a trial court's exclusion of lie detector test results on the ground that such tests had not been "generally accepted" by the scientific community. The Frye rule, or "general acceptance" standard, quickly became the dominant test for the admission of scientific evidence. Decided in 1923, Frye governed evidentiary decisions in a majority of federal circuits for the next seventy years. The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, however, prompted several judges to question the validity of Frye. Since the enactment of the …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

The past year has brought a variety of appellate court decisions (and a few legislative actions) in the evidence area. Some of these are merely affirmations of well-established principles; others answer questions about evidence law which have troubled lawyers and judges in the Commonwealth for some time. And, inevitably, some of them raise questions in areas once thought to be definite and certain.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

The past year has brought a number of cases which have supplemented and clarified existing Virginia law. The Court of Appeals of Virginia has produced many of these decisions in the exercise of its initial appellate jurisdiction, but the docket of the Supreme Court of Virginia has also generated some important holdings in the evidence area.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Newsman's Confidential Source Privilege In Virginia, Phillip Randolph Roach Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The two hundredth anniversary celebration of the United States Constitution in 1987 provided an excellent opportunity to reflect upon how we now interpret the political doctrines that influenced the founding fathers in forming our government. At the time of the American Revolution, the basic tenets and freedoms that were written into the Declaration of Independence, and later incorporated into the Bill of Rights through the efforts of James Madison and George Mason of Virginia were considered essential human rights.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

In terms of evidence legislation, the most significant development of the past year may be what did not happen in Virginia. In late 1987 the Supreme Court of Virginia, following a long period of careful study, recommended against the adoption of a statutory code of evidence for Virginia. In announcing the court's conclusion, Chief Justice Carrico cited a passage from the 1987 Annual Survey of VirginiaLaw, which stated: "When it comes to the formulation of rules of evidence, the common-law system of judge-made rules, supplemented by a steady flow of case opinions from competent appellate courts, is far superior to …

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

During 1986-1987, Virginia evidence law has been expanded and clarified. The Court of Appeals has proved to be an important source of evidentiary decisions, and the Supreme Court of Virginia has provided needed guidance in several areas.

Implied Hearsay: Defusing The Battle Line Between Pragmatism And Theory, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

A return to the emotionally neutral fundamentals of the hearsay rule presents the clash between pragmatists and academicians in a setting which is free of the value laden considerations surrounding child abuse cases. This clash arises at the most fundamental level, that of defining hearsay. Many academicians favor a definition of hearsay as evidence whose reliability depends upon the veracity of someone not subject to cross-examination. Pragmatists (particularly trial lawyers) often find this formulation awkward and prefer a concise definition of hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the contents. The choice of definitions can make a …

Implied Hearsay, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Lawyers sometimes exaggerate the significance of a single sentence or footnote in a court opinion. At other times a single phrase may turn out to be a time bomb which subsequently explodes with far reaching result:i. Court watchers thus spend considerable time trying to discern what is implied within the literal language of a court's opinion. It is no small irony that one of the latest implications in a Virginia Supreme Court decision relates to the implications contained within an out-of-court statement that cannot be literally defined as hearsay. A modification of the hearsay rule, or at least the hearsay …

Toward A Unified Approach To Privileges And Relevancy, Thomas F. Guernsey

Law Faculty Publications

No topic in evidence has received more attention from commentators than evidentiary privileges. In the writings on privilege, however, there has been little discussion that the auxiliary public policies excluding otherwise logically relevant evidence under relevance analysis are essentially the same as the public policies that underlie the creation of privileges. In fact, as a general matter, if no topic has received more attention than privileges, few topics have received less attention than relevancy, and there has been virtually no discussion of the connection between privilege analysis and relevancy analysis. ...

Voice Spectrography Evidence: Approaches To Admissibility, Sharon E. Gregory

University of Richmond Law Review

The admissibility of the results of voiceprint' analysis as evidence in a criminal trial has received a great deal of attention in the last ten years, both from legal scholars and in the courts. Although a relative newcomer to the field of forensic science, voice spectrography is not a recent development in the field of evidence; Wigmore foresaw the use of a voiceprint as early as 1937, when he suggested that the individuality of a person's voice provided a possible means of speaker identification.

Improving Expert Testimony, Jack B. Weinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

Our real world outside the ivory towers of academia and the courts grows more and more complex. The law's use of expert witnesses has expanded at a pace reflective of society's reliance on specialized knowledge. Hardly a case of importance is tried today in the federal courts without the involvement of a number of expert witnesses.

The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: Is The Trier Of Fact Entitled To Hear It?, Joseph M. Reisman

University of Richmond Law Review

The fundamental goal of our adversarial system of litigation is to arrive at the truth through a fair presentation of the evidence. However, in a criminal proceeding material evidence is frequently not as available to the defense as it is to the prosecuting attorney. Consequently, rules have been developed which not only aid the defense in obtaining relevant information, but also assist the prosecution in fulfilling its ethical and constitutional obligations, chief among which is to see that justice and due process are upheld.

Spoliation: Civil Liability For Destruction Of Evidence, Andrea H. Rowse

University of Richmond Law Review

Intentional destruction of evidence has become a serious legal problem. Recently, the A.H. Robins Company was accused of intentionally destroying incriminating documents relevant to Dalkon Shield litigation. Even documents the court ordered to be preserved were allegedly destroyed by an attorney representing the company. The A.H. Robins Company is not the only corporation accused of intentionally destroying evidence. An attorney representing the Eastman-Kodak Company in an antitrust suit admitted that he destroyed documents relating to the litigation.

Nix V. Williams: The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Edward M. Macon

University of Richmond Law Review

In Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception allows the prosecution to introduce illegally obtained evidence at trial upon a showing that such evidence would inevitably have been obtained, even without the police misconduct. The Supreme Court rejected the imposition of a second prong on the inevitable discovery exception which would have required the government to prove the absence of bad faith. The purpose of the inevitable discovery exception is to prevent the "setting aside [of] convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct."

The Evidentiary Use Of The Hla Blood Test In Virginia, Linda L. Lemmon, Lynn K. Murphy

University of Richmond Law Review

In 1966 Virginia enacted legislation, now section 20-61.2 of the Code of Virginia, providing for the admission into evidence of the results of blood tests in cases involving questions of paternity. In 1982, a second statute, section 20-61.1 of the Code of Virginia, was amended to permit the use of genetic blood grouping tests, including the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) test, as evidence of paternity in child support proceedings. With the enactment of these two statutes, Virginia has joined a growing number of states which recognize the accuracy and reliability of the HLA test in establishing paternity.

The Use Of Scientific Evidence In Rape Prosecutions, John T. Tucker Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

Rape is defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a female without her consent." The crime has three basic elements: lack of consent, penetration, and identification of the assailant. Successful rape prosecutions are increasingly utilizing scientific evidence to investigate and prove the elements of rape. The purpose of this paper is to explore the many uses of scientific evidence with an eye towards providing a useful checklist to aid attorneys involved in a rape prosecution.

Winfield V. Commonwealth: The Application Of The Virginia Rape Shield Statute, Philip L. Hatchett

University of Richmond Law Review

In Winfield v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the state's recently enacted rape shield statute could not restrict or infringe upon the defendant's sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to confront his accusers. In overruling the trial judge, the court stated that section 18.2-67.7 of the Code of Virginia actually expanded the admissibility of evidence related to specific prior sexual conduct of the prosecutrix. By this ruling, Virginia has joined a minority of jurisdictions which have refused to recognize the special dilemma of the prosecutrix in a rape trial and to grant additional protections under her …

Admissibility Of Written Standards As Evidence Of The Standard Of Care In Medical And Hospital Negligence Actions In Virginia, Gwen M. Schockemoehl

University of Richmond Law Review

The standard of care in a medical negligence action represents the duty which the defendant physician, nurse, hospital or other health care provider owes to the patient. In Virginia, it is that degree of care and skill possessed by the reasonably prudent practitioner of the same specialty in this state. This standard is an elusive one at best. While learned treatises and journal articles assist in determining the standard, in practice the plaintiff offers experts who state, based on their knowledge, training, and experience that the standard of care requires the defendant to provide a particular type of care which …

Admissibility Of "Day In The Life" Films In Virginia, Mahlon G. Funk Jr., Harry J. Hicks Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years, audiovisual technology has taken an increasingly prominent position in courtroom procedures. Defense attorneys have traditionally introduced motion pictures of allegedly injured plaintiffs caught in some intense physical activity. More recently, courts have allowed the use of audiovisual depositions, which afford scrutiny of the characteristics and mannerisms of deposed witnesses. In the midst of this evidentiary trend, plaintiffs' counsel now frequently seek admission of "day in the life" films. Such films purport to depict for the jury in graphic detail the effects that a severe personal injury can have on the plaintiff's life. Admission of these films is …