Evidence Commons^™

Eliminating Political Maneuvering: A Light In The Tunnel For The Government Attorney-Client Privilege, Patricia E. Salkin, Allyson Phillips

Scholarly Works

The long recognized common-law privilege afforded to certain conversations between attorneys and their clients has been the subject of troubling opinions when the lawyer and client are high ranking government officials. In a series of opinions from the 7th, 8th and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the courts refused to recognize the existence of the attorney-client privilege for the government actors under the circumstances surrounding the cases. However, recent opinions from the 2nd Circuit state that these other courts were simply wrong, setting the stage perhaps, for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Whether this privilege is equally …

Wild Dreamers: Meditation On The Admissibility Of Dream Talk, Louise Harmon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Business Records Exception To The Hearsay Rule - New Is Not Necessarily Better, Sidney Kwestel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Iola And Daubert (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law: The 1997-98 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Etchings On Glass: Reflections On The Science Of Proof, Louise Harmon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

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 …

On Parol: The Construction And Interpretation Of Written Agreements And The Role Of Extrinsic Evidence In Contract Litigation, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

As a general rule, extrinsic evidence, whether written or oral, is not admissible to prove either the intent of the parties to a contract or the meaning of contractual terms when the parties have executed an unambiguous, fully-integrated (i.e., final and all-inclusive) written agreement. The trial court may consider various types of extrinsic evidence, however, in determining whether a particular agreement is fully integrated or ambiguous, and even in choosing among rival interpretations of an agreement where ambiguity is not present. If the trial court determines that an agreement is not fully integrated, then the trier of fact may consider …

The Paradox Of The Fresh Complaint Rule, Kathryn M. Stanchi

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the paradox of the fresh complaint rule, evaluates the proposed solutions, and suggests a modified rule as an interim solution. Part II of this Article explores the fresh complaint rule, from its historical roots in the English common law to its evolution in the United States, with special attention to the rationale for the rule, the requirement of freshness, and the standards for the rule's application. Parts III and IV examine the paradox raised by the need for and effectiveness of the rule and its concurrent harmful effects. Part V describes proposed solutions to the paradox and …

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 …

Admissibility Of Investigatory Reports In § 1983 Civil Rights Actions - A User's Manual, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Trances, Trials, And Tribulations; Symposium Comparing New York And Federal Evidence Law, Gary Shaw

Scholarly Works

A transcript of the author’s remarks at a 1994 symposium comparing New York and Federal Laws regarding hypnosis and witness testimony.

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 …

The Admissibility Of Hypnotically Enhanced Testimony In Criminal Trials, Gary Shaw

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

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.

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 …