Evidence Commons^™

Forfeiture By Wrongdoing And Those Who Acquiesce In Witness Intimidation: A Reach Exceeding Its Grasp And Other Problems With Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(6), James F. Flanagan

Faculty Publications

This article is the first comprehensive and critical analysis of the new exception to the hearsay rule that permits prosecutors to admit hearsay statements of absent witnesses when the defendant causes their unavailability at trial. The article develops the problems with the rule's overbroad language, its potential to admit unreliable hearsay and its relationship to the Confrontation Clause. These issues are of increasing interest to lawyers, judges and justices now that it is a federal rule and been adopted by ten states.

The first section is a comprehensive statement of the rule as now applied. The exception is traced from …

Nullification At Work? A Glimpse From The National Center For State Courts Study Of Hung Juries, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans

Faculty Publications

In 1998, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the National Center for State Courts ("NCSC") to examine the frequency and various causes of hung juries. One of the factors that the NCSC project staff investigated was jurors' perceptions of the fairness of the law they were asked to apply in felony trials as well as jury and case characteristics that are often associated with jury nullification. The project also asked judges and other court actors to rate the strength of the evidence in the case. Thus, the project enabled researchers to examine jurors' views, the evidence, and …

Empirical Evidence And Malpractice Litigation, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Faculty Publications

Critics of medical malpractice litigation believe that expert testimony is often anecdotal and biased. To remedy this problem, several have recently suggested that attorneys should provide and courts should seek reliable empirical evidence of actual clinical norms. Their suggestion should be welcomed. If our expectations are realistic and the design pitfalls are avoided, greater use of use of empirical research will improve the fairness of malpractice adjudication. At least in theory, it could be useful in both the "easy" cases (where it reveals that a consensus standard of care exists) and also some of the harder cases (where clinical practices …

Hair Comparison Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Character Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

“Other Acts” Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Scientific Evidence In Civil And Criminal Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Naturalized Epistemology And The Critique Of Evidence Theory, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In this article I give a mixed review Allen and Leiter’s naturalized epistemology theory of evidence. I applaud their focus on naturalized epistemology, but I question the claims that they argue follow from it. In some ways, my reaction is that they have not gone far enough in pressing its implications, and I attempt to suggest how further progress might be made along this path. On the whole, I conclude that the antipathy toward algrithms expressed by Allen and Leiter is misplaced.

Who Should Control The Decision To Call A Witness: Respecting A Criminal Defendant's Tactical Choices, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

A law student approached me not long ago to discuss a problem he had encountered while helping to prepare a criminal case for retrial. The defendant's first trial ended with a hung jury. The defendant, Steven Brown, now faced a second trial on the same misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer. Although the defendant still wanted to go to trial, Brown told defense counsel that he did not want his elderly father to have to testify again. From defense counsel's standpoint, the father's testimony was critical because he was the only witness corroborating the defendant's version of the event. …

New Developments In Scientific Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Are Prosecutorial Ethics Standards Different?, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Once a prosecutor determines to employ an expert, a number of distinct decisions must be confronted-from choosing the expert, to complying with discovery obligations, to presenting the testimony at trial. Part I of this essay considers the selection of experts. Although improper selection of experts can be viewed as merely another aspect of presenting misleading testimony, we treat it separately in this essay because the literature typically ignores it. Part 1I examines the pretrial disclosure of scientific evidence. The issues that have arisen in this context include late disclosure, omitting information from laboratory reports, declining to have a report prepared, …

Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment: Evidence Amendments, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Daubert In The States, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Traps & Problem Issues, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rape Trauma Syndrome, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Article discusses use of rape trauma syndrom in litigation.

Whoever Fights Monsters Should See To It That In The Process He Does Not Become A Monster: Hunting The Sexual Predator With Silver Bullets -- Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 -- And A Stake Through The Heart -- Kansas V. Hendricks, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Bludgeon By Any Other Name: The Misuse Of Ethical Rules Against Prosecutors To Control The Law Of The State, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

My objective here is threefold: (1) to explain these ethical rules and demonstrate how each is in conflict with longstanding principles of federal criminal law; (2) to explain why these rules are illegitimate, both as rules of ethics and as rules of positive law; and (3) to offer some observations on how the dispute over these rules can sharpen our thinking about the nature and proper limits of ethical rules governing lawyers.

Chain Of Custody, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The After-Acquired Evidence Rule: The Best Of All Possible Worlds?, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Restrictions On Law Enforcement Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Conditional Probative Value And The Reconstruction Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In a recent article, Richard Friedman articulates a modified and generalized version of the doctrine of conditional relevance, which he calls "conditional probative value."1 This version comes in response to a substantial body of academic criticism of the traditional doctrine.2 As one of the critics to whom Professor Friedman responds, I offer this reply with two purposes in mind: (1) to clarify the relationship between Friedman's analysis and my earlier reinterpretation of the conditional relevance doctrine; and (2) to ad- dress Friedman's specific proposals with regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence. I conclude that Friedman's articulation helps clarify the …

Seizing Evidence From Suspects For Forensic Analysis, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Theory Of Verbal Completeness, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In this Article I will endorse the view that the most important modem function of the completeness rule is to trump otherwise applicable exclusionary rules, though not every rule in every instance. I will also offer the general proposition that it should almost always trump one large and important class of exclusionary rules, those based upon the "best evidence" principle, that is, the principle that parties should present to the tribunal the epistemically best evidence available to them on a given litigated issue.

Technology Comes To The Courtroom, And . . ., Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Junk Science, Daubert, And Ohio Rule 702, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Do We Really Want To Know The Defendant?, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Forward to the Symposium on the Admission of Prior Offense Evidence in Sexual Assualt Cases, Chicago, Illinois, 1994.

Confrontation Issues In Child Abuse Cases, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph Evidence: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.