Evidence Commons^™

Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

When a federal court in the United States compels the discovery of information located abroad to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant, the court can apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention. This Note argues that the approach taken by most courts--applying the balancing test formulated by the Supreme Court in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court and favoring application of the Federal Rules--is misguided. Courts should apply the Evidence Convention more often in jurisdictional discovery disputes. They can do so under the existing legal framework with one of three holdings: …

Unraveling The Exclusionary Rule: From Leon To Herring To Robinson - And Back?, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule began to unravel in United States v. Leon. The facts were compelling. Why exclude reliable physical evidence from trial when it was not the constable who blundered, but “a detached and neutral magistrate” who misjudged whether probable cause was present and issued a search warrant? Later cases applied the exception for “good faith” mistakes to a police officer who, pursuing a grudge against a suspect, arrested and searched him and his truck on the basis of a false and negligent report from a clerk in another county of an outstand­ing arrest warrant. The California Supreme …

Abolishing State Trademark Registrations, Lee Ann W. Lockridge

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Evidence (Routledge Handbook Of International Criminal Law), Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Who Must Testify To The Results Of A Forensic Laboratory Test? Bullcoming V. New Mexico, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Does the Confrontation Clause permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the reported test?

Potential Responses To The Melendez-Diaz Line Of Cases, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Criminal prosecution is increasingly dependent on proof of the results of forensic laboratory tests. They are used, for example, to prove that a given substance contains cocaine; the prove what a driver’s blood alcohol content was; and to demonstrate that the DNA profile of some substance found at the crime scene matches that of the accused.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), the United States Supreme Court resolved a question that had divided the lower courts in the wake of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Melendez-Diaz Court held by a 5-4 vote that forensic laboratory …

Hanging On By A Thread: The Exclusionary Rule (Or What's Left Of It) Lives For Another Day, David A. Moran

Articles

Back when there was a Soviet Union, foreign intelligence officers would anxiously await the May Day parade in Moscow to see who would be standing next to the chairman of the Communist Party and who would be missing from the reviewing platform altogether. Since the Soviet government and the statecontrolled press published very little about what was really going on in the halls of state power, this was considered the most reliable way to determine who was in or out of favor and, by extension, how the domestic and foreign policies of the world's second most powerful country were likely …

A Novel Countermeasure Against The Reaction Time Index Of Countermeasure Use In The P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol For Detection Of Concealed Information, Alexander Sokolovsky, Jessica Rothenberg, Elena Labkovsky, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld

Scholarly Works

A P300 deception detection protocol was tested using simultaneous versus serial countermeasures and stimulus acknowledgment responses. Previously, P300 showed recognition and elevated reaction time identified countermeasure use. Probe-irrelevant P300 differences were significant in both countermeasure groups and control group. Detection rates were 11/12 for controls, 10/12 for serial countermeasure users, and 11/13 for simultaneous countermeasure users. Reaction time detected countermeasure use in serial responders, but not simultaneous responders. The simultaneous response reaction times were indistinguishable from controls.

Book Review Of Fact Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations Of International Criminal Convictions, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The Capital Jury Project For Military Practitioners: Aggravation, Mitigation, And Admission Defenses, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rule 801(D)'S Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory And A Suggested Amendment, Sam Stonefield

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines Rule 801(d)’s oxymoronic treatment of admissions and prior statements as “not hearsay.” This “not hearsay” label is inaccurate – the evidence is hearsay, as defined in Rule 801(c) – and is inconsistent with the analytically important and well-established use of the term not hearsay to describe evidence that is actually not hearsay.

The Article tells the story of how the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence ended up with such a confused and confusing label and proposes an amendment that would classify admissions and prior statements as hearsay exceptions and place each in a new, separate, …

Federal Rule Of Evidence 502: Has It Lived Up To Its Potential?, Paul W. Grimm, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, Matthew P. Kraeuter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Ethical Guidance For A Grander Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Simplifying Discovery And Production: Using Easy Frameworks To Evaluate The 2009 Term Of Cases, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.