Evidence Commons^™

Evidence Rule 502: The Solution To The Privilege-Protection Puzzle In The Digital Era, John M. Barkett

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconceptualizing The Burden Of Proof, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The preponderance standard is conventionally described as an absolute probability threshold of 0.5. This Essay argues that this absolute characterization of the burden of proof is wrong. Rather than focusing on an absolute threshold, the Essay reconceptualizes the preponderance standard as a probability ratio and shows how doing so eliminates many of the classical problems associated with probabilistic theories of evidence. Using probability ratios eliminates the so-called Conjunction Paradox, and developing the ratio tests under a Bayesian perspective further explains the Blue Bus problem and other puzzles surrounding statistical evidence. By harmonizing probabilistic theories of proof with recent critiques advocating …

The 2012 Amendments To Singapore's Evidence Act: More Questions Than Answers As Regards Expert Opionion Evidence?, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Singapore amended the expert opinion evidence provisions in its Evidence Act (EA) in 2012. The criteria for admissibility have been broadened, but the courts are now also expressly given the discretion to exclude relevant expert opinion evidence if it is ‘in the interests of justice’. This article explains why the 2012 amendments have raised more questions than answered them. First, Parliament did not appear to have properly appreciated the distinction—as conceptualised by the EA—between legal and logical relevance and relevance and admissibility. Second, it did not appear to have appreciated the distinction between general and specific relevance. Third, the introduction …

Doe Co., Ltd V. Doe, Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Esther Hayut

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

The Supreme Court (Justice Vogelman, Justices Hayut and Amit, concurring) granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal and ruled as follows.

The Court considered the proceedings on the premise that the provisions of section 70(e1) of the Courts Act [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984 (hereinafter – the “Act”), which refers to a “suspect” as defined in section 70(e2) of the Act “as someone against whom a …

Comments On Maryland V. King In 'U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Over Md. Dna Case: Justices' Decision Will Have National Implications On Future Crime-Fighting Procedures', Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier

Florida Law Review

This Note argues for the implementation of bright-line rules to guide prosecutorial discretion. It urges a solution that identifies the salient facts from the case law and enumerates those facts into a codified Strickler three-prong standard. A bright-line standard should exist requiring disclosure when any of the following scenarios are present: (1) Prior perjury or false testimony of a government witness; (2) Promises of immunity to a government witness; (3) Monetary rewards to key government witnesses; (4) Mental impairments of a government witness; (5) Information reflecting bias or prejudice of a government witness against defendant; (6) Confessions to the crime …

The White Interest In School Integration, Robert A. Garda Jr.

Florida Law Review

Discussions concerning desegregation, affirmative action, and voluntary integration focus primarily, if not exclusively, on whether such policies harm or benefit minorities. Scant attention is paid to the benefits whites receive in multiracial schools, despite white interests underpinning more than thirty years of Supreme Court integration jurisprudence. In this Article, I explore the academic and social benefits whites receive in multiracial schools, and I do so from a white parent’s perspective. The Article begins by describing the interest-convergence theory and how white interests explain the course and content of the Supreme Court’s desegregation and affirmative action jurisprudence. Multiracial schools will not …

Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Drug Use And The Exclusionary Manque, Jerome A. Busch

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …

New York V. Belton: The Scope Of Warrantless Searches Extended, Glenn D. Forcucci

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in New York v. Belton, expanded the area in which a policeman may search after he has made a lawful custodial arrest. In so ruling, the Supreme Court dramatically departed from its previous holding in Chimel v. California. While Chimel limited the area of the search to the area "within the immediate control of the arrestee," Belton allowed a search outside of that established boundary, as the Supreme Court allowed the search to include the passenger compartment of an automobile which the arrestee had not occupied.

Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence In Civil Cases: Could This Be The Path Out Of The Labyrinth Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Richard J. Hanscom

Pepperdine Law Review

The use of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases has been the subject of extensive debate since its inception. Although most efforts to modify the rule have been deemed unworkable, the author proposes a modification that is both workable and sensible. Modification would be accomplished by legislation which admits the results of illegal searches by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith, and, at the same time, provide fixed monetary sanctions against the governmental agencies whose officers conducted the search. The author proposes a good faith balancing test to determine evidence admissibility and administrative type proceedings to determine monetary …

The Use Of Aviation Accident Reports By Civil Litigants: The Historical Development Of 49 U.S.C. Section 1441(E), Walter A. T. Welch Jr., John E. Faulk

Pepperdine Law Review

When aviation accidents occur, the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an investigation to determine the conditions, circumstances, and ultimately the probable cause of the accident. There is a federal statutory privilege which renders these reports, as well as testimony from the attending investigator, inadmissible as evidence in any suit or action arising from the accident. However, certain judicially created exceptions have arisen which permit portions of the report and certain investigator testimony to be admitted into evidence. The authors delineate and analyze these exceptions as they discuss the trend toward increased report and testimony admissibility. The authors conclude with a …

Understanding Admissibility Of Prior Bad Acts: A Diagrammatic Approach, William Roth

Pepperdine Law Review

One of the most misunderstood areas of evidence in criminal cases is the admissibility of a defendant's prior bad acts. This article discusses both the practical and theoretical perspectives of prior bad acts and presents a diagram of the different admissibility theories. This visual aid is a great step forward in simplifying this problematic area.

United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.

Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth

Pepperdine Law Review

On January 1, 1982, the new California drunk driving law went into effect. This law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle where one's blood alcohol level is .10 or more. The law also marks a legislative attempt to curtail the practice of plea bargaining in drunk driving cases and significantly increases the penalties imposed upon those convicted of drunk driving. This Comment will discuss the provisions of the new drunk driving law and examine its constitutionality.

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof.

I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …

The Discovery And Use Of Computerized Information: An Examination Of Current Approaches, Richard M. Long

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent years, the legal profession has run head on into the increasing use of computers and computerized information. Discovery and evidentiary rules developed to deal with written documentation may not be flexible enough to adequately cover this relatively new method of storing information. This comment examines various methods by which courts have attempted to deal with discovery and evidentiary problems involving computerized information, and suggests certain areas that should be explored in supporting or attacking the credibility of such information.

Child Witnesses In Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, And Proposals For Reform, Dominic J. Fote

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, And The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Ben Trachtenberg

Florida Law Review

Using the example of a recent major terrorism prosecution, this Article addresses “coventurer hearsay” in the context of the ongoing Confrontation Clause debate concerning the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. Courts have recently begun admitting hearsay evidence pursuant to a revisionist interpretation of the coconspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule. Under the new “lawful joint venture” theory, a hearsay statement may be admitted as a coconspirator statement if made in furtherance of a “joint undertaking”—defined as pretty much any cooperative activity—even if the “conspiracy” is not illegal. Because this new interpretation of an old …

The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Discoverability Of Private Social Media Content: Are Pennsylvania Trial Courts Going Too Far By Granting Litigants Unfettered Access To Their Opponents' Social Media Accounts?, Timothy C. Quinn

Duquesne Law Review

Patty Plaintiff was driving on a Pennsylvania road when Denny Defendant ran a red light and struck Plaintiffs vehicle, causing Patty to lose control of her car and strike a pole. Patty sustained injuries to her neck, back, and face. She subsequently sued Denny for damages, including lost wages, lost future earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, and scarring and embarrassment. In addition, Patty's husband filed a claim against Denny for loss of consortium. Denny's counsel conceded Denny's negligence, leaving only the amount and extent of damages at issue. In the discovery …

More Than A "Quick Glimpse Of The Life": The Relationship Between Victim Impact Evidence And Death Sentencing, Jerome E. Deise, Raymond Paternoster

Faculty Scholarship

In striking down the use of victim impact evidence (VIE) during the penalty phase of a capital trial, the Supreme Court in Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers argued that such testimony would appeal to the emotions of jurors with the consequence that death sentences would not be based upon a reasoned consideration of the blameworthiness of the offender. After a change in personnel, the Court overturned both decisions in Payne v. Tennessee, decided just two years after Gathers. The majority in Payne were decidedly less concerned with the emotional appeal of VIE, arguing that it would only …

Genetic Privacy And The Fourth Amendment: Unregulated Surreptitious Dna Harvesting, Albert E. Scherr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Genetic privacy and police practices have come to the fore in the criminal justice system. Case law and stories in the media document that police are surreptitiously harvesting the DNA of putative suspects. Some sources even indicate that surreptitious data banking may also be in its infancy. Surreptitious harvesting of out-of-body DNA by the police is currently unregulated by the Fourth Amendment. The few courts that have addressed the issue find that the police are free to harvest DNA abandoned by a putative suspect in a public place. Little in the nascent surreptitious harvesting case law suggests that surreptitious data …

Factually Innocent Without Dna? An Analysis Of Utah's Factual Innocence Statute, Nic Caine

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Since 1989, DNA evidence has fueled the innocence movement, helping hundreds prove their innocence and obtain freedom. DNA technology has been an invaluable development for the innocence movement, and DNA technology will continue to advance and improve in the future. DNA evidence is not available in the majority of cases, however, and many believe that DNA exonerations will eventually diminish as DNA analysis becomes more widely available. Furthermore, “for every DNA exoneree there are hundreds if not over a thousand wrongfully convicted defendants whose cases do not contain biological evidence that could prove innocence.”150 It is time for other states …