Evidence Commons^™

Refocusing The New Evidence Scholarship, Terence J. Anderson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Incentives To Spoliate Evidence In Civil Litigation: The Need For Vigorous Judicial Action, Charles R. Nesson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kicking Rocks With Dr. Johnson: A Comment On Professor Allen’S Theory, Craig R. Callen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Dna “Fingerprinting” Can Teach The Law About The Rest Of Forensic Science, Michael J. Saks, Jonathan J. Koehler

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Criminal Discovery Code In Oklahoma: A Two Way Street In The Wrong Direction, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

This article first examines criminal discovery in Oklahoma prior to the Allen decision. Next, section II of the article explores Allen and the court’s justifications for creating a reciprocal discovery system. The article reviews the Allen procedures and similar pre-trial discovery provisions contained in the American Bar Association’s Standards for Criminal Justice and questions whether Allen’s new discovery system will achieve the desired results. Section II also focuses on the constitutionality of the defendant’s disclosure obligations and the adverse effects of mandating such disclosures on the adversary system. Finally, section III of the article proposes an alternative discovery code based …

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

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Idaho V. Wright: The Defenestration Of Corroborating Evidence, John Clairborne Koski

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

The Georgia lawyers among the readers of this Article likely are somewhat familiar with efforts over the past several years to adopt a new Georgia Evidence Code based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence (the "Rules"). The Georgia Evidence Code is Sorely in need of revision. It can be argued that there is no Georgia Evidence Code as such. Indeed, Georgia lawyers must grapple with an amorphous amalgam of disjointed statutes and thousands of judicial decisions that constitute our body of evidence law.

Modern Confession Law After Duckworth V. Eagan: What's The Use Of Explaining?, Julia C. Weissman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Evidence Pedagogy In The Age Of Statutes, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

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 …

Criminal Discovery, Scientific Evidence, And Dna, Paul C. Giannelli

Vanderbilt Law Review

"At bottom the case against Claus von Bilow was a scientific case. It would have to be refuted by scientific evidence,"' wrote Alan Dershowitz. The von Bilow case is not alone. Many recent notorious criminal trials involved scientific proof. For example, the prosecution offered hypnotically refreshed testimony and bite mark evidence in the Ted Bundy case. Fiber evidence proved critical in the trial of Wayne Williams for the murder of two of the thirty young black males killed in Atlanta in the late 1970s.' Other illustrations include the pathology and serology testimony in the Jean Harris trial, the forensic analysis …

Maryland V. Craig: Ignoring The Letter And Purpose Of The Confrontation Clause, Anthony S. Parise

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drug Testing And Welfare: Taking The Drug War To Unconstitutional Limits?, Philippa M. Guthrie

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The American Jury At Twenty-Five Years, Valerie P. Hans, Neil Vidmar

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The year 1991 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Harry Kalven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel's classic work, The American Jury. Arguably one of the most important books in the field of law and social science, this research monograph began the modrn field of jury studies and deeply influenced contemporary understanding of the jury as an institution.

In this essay we assess the book from the vantage point of a quarter- century. First, we provide a historical backdrop by reviewing the activities of the University of Chicago's Jury Project that led to the publication of The American Jury …

Social Science And The Courts: The Role Of Amicus Curiae Briefs, Ronald G. Roesch, Stephen L. Golding, Valerie P. Hans, N. Dickon Reppucci

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or "friend of the court" briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief in Maryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by …

Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses how attorneys can argue against having government and public reports admitted into evidence at trial that would be damaging to their client. When this paper was done, such reports were admitted via Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). The authors argue that it is possible to challenge admission of factual findings in public reports despite various court decisions which make this difficult.

Obscured Visions: Policy, Power, And Discretion In Transnational Discovery, David J. Gerber

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay addresses issues involving the discovery of information located outside the United States. Specifically, it deals with some of the problems created by the lack of appropriate limits on United States discovery procedures. Professor Gerber first analyzes the extent of judicial discretion in the United States in matters concerning extraterritorial discovery. The analysis encompasses the underlying legal bases for the exercise of discretion as well as the political and institutional factors that influence the uses of discretion.

Next, the Essay focuses on the international consequences of the virtually unlimited discretion courts in the United States exercise in discovery matter. …

To See Or Not To See The Defendant: Expanding The Use Of Florida's Special Procedures For Taking The Testimony Of Witnesses, Glenn F. Lang

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth, Fifth, And Sixth Amendments, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "Whys" And "Whynots" Of Judicial Comments On Evidence In Jury Trials, Allen Hartman Justice

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Refocusing The New Evidence Scholarship : A Comment On Robert S. Thompson's "Decision, Disciplined Inferences And The Adversary Process", Terence J. Anderson

Articles

No abstract provided.

Successful Shadowboxing: The Art Of Impeaching Hearsay Declarants, The Honorable Anthony M. Brannon

Campbell Law Review

Using the nine modes of impeachment recognized by the common law, I will examine some of the possibilities for impeaching hearsay declarants. As I explore each mode, I will discuss whether extrinsic, as well as intrinsic, evidence may be used to impeach the hearsay evidence.

Videotaped Reenactments In Civil Trials: Protecting Probative Evidence From The Trial Judge's Unbridled Discretion, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 433 (1991), Elizabeth A. Savage

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hearsay In State Administrative Hearings: The Maryland Experience And Suggestions For Change, Arnold Rochvarg

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Authentication, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil: On Professor Nesson's Claims About Evidence Suppression, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Nesson's presentaiton at the Decision and Interference Litigation symposium, New York, New York, 1991.

Gunshot Residue Tests, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Public Opinion Polls And Surveys As Evidence: Suggestions For Resolving Confusing And Conflicting Standards Governing Weight And Admissibility , Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Section I provides a basic overview of public opinion polls, beginning with a brief explanation of the current popularity of this type of data, followed by a discussion of the courts' historic treatment of survey evidence and a review of modern standards which courts use in evaluating the weight and admissibility of polling data. The exact "rules" governing the conduct of litigants and their respective counsel in commissioning and executing a survey and those governing the courts' refereeing of evidentiary disputes over polling data remain unclear. These unresolved issues are discussed in Section II. Suggestions for moving toward a more …

Evidence, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article addresses some of the more significant evidence cases decided by the Fifth Circuit during the survey period.' Before turning to the cases themselves, it is important to note at the outset that like other federal courts, the Fifth Circuit is generally not inclined to reverse a case on an evidentiary error. It should not be surprising then that in most of the cases which follow, the court implicitly deferred to the decision of the trial judge in deciding whether a certain piece of evidence was admissible.