Evidence Commons^™

A History Of Representations Of Justice: Coincident Preoccupations Of Law And Film, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

The American trial and the art of cinema share certain epistemological tendencies. Both stake claims to an authoritative form of knowledge based on the indubitable quality of observable phenomena. Both are preoccupied (sometimes to the point of self-defeat) with sustaining the authority that underlies the knowledge produced by visual perception. The American trial and art of cinema also increasingly share cultural space. Although the trial film (otherwise known as the courtroom drama) is as old as the medium of film the recent spate of popular trial films, be they fictional such as Runaway Jury or documentary such as Capturing the …

Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.

Bite Mark Analysis, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Courts have admitted bite mark comparison evidence in homicide, rape, and child abuse cases. By the 1980s, the technique had gained widespread judicial acceptance. Hundreds of cases have admitted this type of evidence, and no reported case has rejected it. Moreover, some courts speak of bite mark comparison as a "science." Indeed, its acceptance is so well-established that several courts have taken judicial notice of its reliability, implying that the validity of the technique is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Yet, the scientific foundations for bite mark comparisons has never been demonstrated. Such basic issues as the uniqueness of the …

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Managing Preservation Obligations After The 2006 Federal E-Discovery Amendments, Thomas Y. Allman

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2006 Amendments or the Amendments) do not directly address the onset or scope of preservation obligations. As noted in the September 2005 Report of the Standing Committee of the Judicial Conference recommending adoption of the 2006 Amendments, preservation obligations “arise from independent sources of law” and are dependent upon “the substantive law of each jurisdiction.” However, the Amendments have a major impact on how parties must analyze and execute preservation obligations involving electronically stored information (“ESI”).

The 2006 Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure: Accessible And Inaccessible Electronic Information Storage Devices, Why Parties Should Store Electronic Information In Accessible Formats, Benjamin D. Silbert

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Discovery jurisprudence is a cornerstone of civil litigation in the United States. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as adopted in 1938, introduced a broad discovery process, which was not a previously accepted practice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been revised several times since 1938, reflecting the evolution of society. However, prior to 2006, 1970 was the last time the discovery rules were amended to take into account changes in information technology. In the last thirty-seven years, technological advances in electronic storage and communication have changed the way people live and how business is conducted, beyond what could …

An Argument For Original Intent: Restoring Rule 801(D)(1)(A) To Protect Domestic Violence Victims In A Post-Crawford World, Andrew King-Ries

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doctrinal Issues In Evidence And Proof, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The word evidence ordinarily means the statements, events, items, or sensory perceptions that suggest the existence or nonexistence of, or truth or falsity of, another fact. Thus, one may say, “hoofbeats are evidence a horse may be passing.” Proof is similar in meaning but may connote more certainty.

Evidence can also mean the study of either (1) how people make such inferences (especially when conjoined with the word proof) or (2) how law regulates information admissibility in the judicial context. Evidence in the latter sense is the name of a standard law school course in common law countries and a …

Special Issues Raised By Rape Trials, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Rape cases reveal core conflicts in the space where evidence, law, and ethics intersect. Such conflicts include the tension between victim protection and the rights of the accused, the challenges attorneys face trying to negotiate the demands of sensitive and emotionally difficult cases, and the role of the law in counteracting stereotypes and bias.

In this essay, I will begin by presenting the cultural milieu surrounding rape allegations, briefly reviewing attitudes towards perpetrators and victims. Next, I will attempt to capture the legal zeitgeist concerning rape, focusing on two recent phenomena: the reversal of false rape convictions based on DNA …

The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington asserted that the Confrontation Clause constitutionalized the common law right of confrontation, cases have been suggested that illustrate that right. This short essay considers whether the 1779 English case Rex v. Brasier is such a decision, as some contend. The essay concludes that Brasier says nothing about the right of confrontation and points to a comparable framing-era, American case that indicates that general rules about hearsay and confrontation were not at issue. The essay maintains that if the historical understandings of the right of confrontation and hearsay are to control the Confrontation Clause, then framing-era, American …

Proving Lost Profits Under Daubert: Five Questions Every Court Should Ask Before Admitting Expert Testimony, Robert M. Lloyd

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unrecognized Right Of Criminal Defendants To Admit Their Own Pretrial Statements, The , Stephen A. Saltzburg, Daniel J. Capra

Faculty Scholarship

In Agard v. Portuondo, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not violate a testifying defendant's constitutional rights by inviting the jury to infer from the defendant's presence at trial that the defendant altered his own version of events to accord with other witnesses' testimony. Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court emphasized that jurors might well draw the inference even without a prosecutor asking them to do so. Although Agard is viewed as giving an advantage in a criminal trial to the government, this Article considers how Agard might be used to allow defense counsel to introduce …

Images Of Expertise: Converging Discourses On The Use And Abuse Of Science In Massachusetts V. Epa, David S. Caudill

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Comment On Proposed Federal Rule Of Evidence 502(C), Liesa L. Richter

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Apology In The Context Of Wrongful Conviction: Why The System Should Say It's Sorry, Abigail Penzell

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

The first section of this Note will discuss apology as a psychological tool to heal victims, offenders, and the community. The second section will examine the use of apology in analogous contexts to that of wrongful conviction. The third section will explore the potential or perceived disadvantages of offering an apology in the criminal context. The fourth section will detail the desire for apology among the wrongfully convicted as well as give examples of situations - like Mr. Fuller's - in which an apology has been tendered and has helped victims reintegrate into society. Finally, I will conclude that the …

Adverse To What?: The Increasing Value Of Patent Opinions After Knorr-Bremse, Matthew Leary

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Friday Night 'Lite': How De-Racialization In The Motion Picture Friday Night Lights Disserves The Movement To Eradicate Racial Discrimination From American Sport, N. Jeremi Duru

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Holmes V. South Carolina Upholds Trial By Jury, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted of a brutal rape-murder and sentenced to death. The only evidence that connected him to the crime was forensic: a palm print, and blood and fiber evidence. (Biological samples taken from the victim for two rape kits were compromised and yielded no identifiable evidence.) Holmes claimed that the state's forensic evidence was planted and mishandled, and that the rape and murder were committed by another man, Jimmy McCaw White. At a pretrial hearing three witnesses testified that they saw White near the victim's house at about the time of the crime, and four others testified …

The Perils Of Evidentiary Manipulation, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The use of evidentiary rules to achieve substantive goals strikes me as a Faustian bargain, and, given Bierschbach and Stein's acknowledgedly tentative position, I hope to dissuade them of the virtues of the practice. My goal therefore is to explore briefly the potential dark side of specialized evidentiary rules. The concerns of injecting substantive goals into evidence law extend far beyond the narrow legitimacy concerns Bierschbach and Stein raise. It is not simply the question of whether we aspire to a pluralistic or majority-take-all democratic society. Rather, evidentiary manipulation threatens the legitimacy of criminal and evidence law... Bierschbach and Stein's …

Judges, Juries, And Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The rise in scientific evidence offered in American jury trials, along with court rulings thrusting judges into the business of assessing the soundness of scientific evidence, have produced challenges for judge and jury alike. Many judges have taken up the duty of becoming “amateur scientists.” But what about juries? Surely they too could benefit from assistance as they attempt to master and apply complex testimony about scientific matters during the course of a trial. Concerns about the jury’s ability to understand, critically evaluate, and employ scientific evidence in deciding complex trials have led to many suggestions for reform.

This article …

"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson

Publications

This paper, a companion piece to the author's earlier exploration of the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, describes the remarkable record of unethical conduct compiled by the eminent and respectable attorneys for the insurance companies in the course of that litigation. When married with the Supreme Court Justices' uncritical willingness to accept the false narrative thus contrived, these attorneys' misconduct led to the creation of an important rule of evidence - a rule of questionable merit. This article aims to remind us that lawyers who are willing to distort the process of litigation have the power …

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.

Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …

The Irrelevance, And Central Relevance, Of The Boundary Between Science And Non-Science In The Evaluation Of Expert Witness Reliability, D. Michael Risinger

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Motives For Idealizing The Pragmatic, Lewis H. Larue

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Legal Ethics And Scientific Testimony: In Defense Of Manufacturing Uncertainty, Deconstructing Expertise And Other Trial Strategies, David S. Caudill

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Who Knew - The Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Ryan Vacca, Mark G. Boyko

Faculty Publications

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and equivalent state court rules prohibit the introduction of subsequent remedial measures for the purpose of demonstrating negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. The rule breaks down, however, in application and purpose, when a defendant undertakes a new safety measure after the plaintiff's injury but before the defendant had knowledge of the loss. Such a situation is not uncommon. Would-be defendants frequently improve their products and product safety, whether in response to injuries incurred by other users, business pressures, or simply advances in the state of the art and scientific knowledge. Toxic exposure cases, where …

Crawford, Davis, And Way Beyond, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Until 1965, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution hardly mattered. It was not applicable against the states, and therefore had no role whatsoever in the vast majority of prosecutions. Moreover, if a federal court was inclined to exclude evidence of an out-of-court statement, it made little practical difference whether the court termed the statement hearsay or held that the evidence did not comply with the Confrontation Clause.

The Use And Misuse Of High-Tech Evidence By Prosecutors: Ethical And Evidentiary Issues, Robert Aronson, Jacqueline Mcmurtrie

Articles

This essay first addresses the ethical and evidentiary standards for the emerging use of high-tech computer-generated animations and computer-assisted closing arguments. Next, this essay considers the same questions within the context of forensic DNA evidence. Third, this essay considers the ethics of prosecutors' use of such evidence and the consequences for the misuse of this evidence. Finally, this essay suggests remedies to ethical problems facing prosecutors in their use of this kind of evidence.

Testing The Testimonial Concept And Exceptions To Confrontation: “A Little Child Shall Lead Them”, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court radically transformed the analysis of the Confrontation Clause for hearsay, but left many specific questions unanswered. Two years later in Davis v. Washington (2006), it revisited the subject and answered a few of the unresolved issues, but again left much in doubt, apparently reorienting the focus of the testimonial definition from that of the party making the statement to that of the person receiving it. One of the areas where the new doctrine has greatest potential importance is in cases involving children, particularly cases involving physical and sexual abuse. The importance derives …