Evidence Commons^™

Challenging Judicial Notice Of Facts On The Internet Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 201, Coleen M. Barger

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Text Messages And The Hearsay Rule In The Aaron Hernandez Case, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Fifth Amendment Protection For Public Employees: Garrity And Limited Constitutional Protections From Use Of Employer Coerced Statements In Internal Investigations And Practical Considerations, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Elm In The Courtroom: Application To Trial Juries, Natalie Claire Hopkins

Communication Studies

No abstract provided.

Sharpening The Tools Of An Adequate Defense: Providing For The Appointment Of Experts For Indigent Defendants In Child Death Cases Under Ake V. Oklahoma, Laurel Gilbert

San Diego Law Review

This Comment proposes that because of ongoing concerns regarding the reliability and validity of forensic science in the United States, the Due Process Clause constitutionally mandates the appointment of forensic experts for indigent defendants in criminal cases arising out of a child’s death if the prosecution relies on forensic evidence. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the current law governing the admissibility of forensic expert testimony in criminal cases and explains why these admissibility standards create a need for the appointment of defense forensic experts to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Part III then discusses Due …

Limited Admissibility And Its Limitations, Lisa Dufraimont

Articles & Book Chapters

Among the challenges facing juries and judges in adjudicating cases is the obligation to use evidence for limited purposes. Evidence inadmissible for one purpose is frequently admissible for other purposes, a situation known as "limited admissibility". Where limited admissibility arises in jury trials, courts generally deliver limiting instructions outlining the inferences that can legitimately be drawn from the evidence and identifying prohibited lines of reasoning to be avoided. Limiting instructions represent an expedient solution to limited-admissibility problems, but they create obvious problems of their own. A thoughtful observer might suspect-as psychological studies confirm-that limiting instructions are likely to fail in …

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

Book Review: Errol Morris, “A Wilderness Of Error”: Provocative But Unpersuasive, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Military Trial At Rennes: Text And Subtext Of The Dreyfus Affair, Vivian G. Curran

Touro Law Review

Discusses the Dreyfus affair and how the outside world viewed France's conduct. This article provides insight into how the trial was conducted and the evidence that was offered.

The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …

“Lonesome Road”: Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Seattle University Law Review

The protections of the Fourth Amendment on the streets and highways of America have been drastically curtailed. This Article traces the debasement of Fourth Amendment protections on the road and how the Fourth Amendment’s core value of preventing arbitrary police behavior has been marginalized. This Article contends that the existence of a traffic offense should not be the end of the inquiry but the first step, and that defendants should be able to challenge the reasonableness even when there is proof of a traffic offense.

People V. Rojas: The Expanding Concept Of Unavailability, Brian Wade Uhl

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Duty Of The Prosecutor To Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States V. Agurs, Christian F. Dubia Jr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Weatherford V. Bursey: "Surreptitious Invasion… Into The Legal Camp Of The Defense", Paul H. Voss

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages: An Exception To The Right Of Privacy? Coy V. Superior Court, Richard S. Fields

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, Bruce A. Green

Mercer Law Review

Suppose that federal prosecutors have conducted an investigation culminating in an indictment. Although the prosecutors believe that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and are personally convinced that the defendant is guilty, some of the evidence they have collected is favorable to the defendant, because it tends to show that the defendant is innocent or that prosecution witnesses should not be believed. Must prosecutors disclose the favorable evidence to defense counsel to use in investigating, advising the defendant, plea negotiations, or trial? Under current federal law, the answer is generally "no." Unless favorable evidence falls within one of …

Williams V. Illinois: Confronting Experts, Science, And The Constitution, Natasha Crawford

Mercer Law Review

DNA evidence has revolutionized forensic science, making it the "single greatest advance in the search for truth.., since the advent of cross-examination." In Williams v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding that there was no Confrontation Clause violation where experts based their testimony on another analyst's DNA report that was not admitted into evidence. The Court held an expert may assume the truth of certain facts-such as a DNA profile contained in a forensic report-to offer testimony based on those facts without testifying to the truth of the matter asserted. Until Williams, the …

The Proposed Fairness In Disclosure Of Evidence Act Of 2012: More Cons Than Pros With Proposed Disclosure Requirements In Federal Criminal Cases, Jacquelyn Smith

Mercer Law Review

The proposed Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012 (the Act) is a proposal of uniform standards for disclosing evidence in federal criminal cases that was introduced on March 15, 2012 by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.' The Act's stated purpose is: "To require the attorney for the Government to disclose favorable information to the defendant in criminal prosecutions brought by the United States, and for

Subverting Brady V. Maryland And Denying A Fair Trial: Studying The Schuelke Report, Bennett L. Gershman

Mercer Law Review

The Schuelke Report about the ill-fated federal prosecution of the late-Senator Ted Stevens is an extraordinary contribution to criminal procedure. No other official documentation or investigative study of a criminal prosecution, to my knowledge, has dissected and analyzed as carefully and thoroughly the sordid and clandestine actions of a team of prosecutors who zealously wanted to win a criminal conviction at all costs. In examining this Report, one gets the feeling that as the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens unfolded and the prosecution's theory of guilt unraveled, the prosecutors became indifferent to the defendant's guilt or innocence. They just …

Prosecutorial Disclosure Violations: Punishment Vs. Treatment, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Mercer Law Review

Recent scholarship on prosecutorial disclosure violations proposes preventing violations through understanding and remedying the causes of violations, such as cognitive error. Scholars who adopt this view-what I call here the "treatment perspective"-often call for greater transparency and cooperation from prosecutors. A frequently unacknowledged tension exists between such a treatment perspective and a more traditional perspective-what I call here the "punishment perspective"-that seeks to deter disclosure violations through greater use of sanctions such as professional discipline.

The tension arises because increasing the certainty and severity of sanctions, as the punishment perspective urges, creates a powerful disincentive for individual prosecutors and prosecutor …

Why Federal Rule Of Evidence 403 Is Unconstitutional, And Why That Matters, Kenneth S. Klein

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Issues In Indian Law Cases, Taylor S. Fielding

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Counsel's Control Over The Presentation Of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing, James Michael Blakemore

Michigan Law Review

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's assistance. A lawyer's assistance, however, sometimes interferes with a defendant's control over his case. As a result, the Supreme Court, over time, has had to delineate the spheres of authority that pertain to counsel and defendant respectively. The Court has not yet decisively assigned control over mitigating evidence to either counsel or defendant. This Note argues that counsel should control the presentation of mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. First, and most importantly, decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence are best characterized …

Research Project, David J. Agatstein

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Evidence For Administrative Law Judges, Christine Mckenna Moore

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Argument And Courtroom Theatrics, Larry Geller, Peter Hemenway

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Vocational Testimony In Social Security Hearings, Daniel F. Solomon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Developments In The Law Of Scientific Evidence: The Admissibility Of Polygraph Evidence, Sheila K. Hyatt

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.