Evidence Commons^™

Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall

Maine Law Review

In the endless and seemingly futile government war against drugs, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution may have fallen by the wayside as courts struggle to deal with drug offenders. The compelling government interest in controlling the influx of drugs all too often results in a judicial attitude that the ends justify the means. Judges can be reluctant to exclude evidence of drugs found in an unlawful search pursuant to the exclusionary rule, which provides that illegally obtained evidence may not be used at trial. The exclusion of drugs as evidence in drug cases often …

Termination Of Hospital Medical Staff Privileges For Economic Reasons: An Appeal For Consistency, June D. Zellers, Michael R. Poulin

Maine Law Review

The relationship between physicians and hospitals is undergoing significant change. Historically, a physician maintained a private practice in the community and looked to the local hospital for ancillary support when his or her patients were too ill to remain at home. This community-based physician gained access to the hospital by obtaining medical staff privileges. These privileges allowed the physician to admit patients to the hospital, treat patients while they were there, and use the hospital's staff and equipment. The physician generally enjoyed the use of the privileges throughout his or her active career, losing them only if found incompetent. Today, …

Lyrics For Lockups: Using Rap Lyrics To Prosecute In America, Briana Carter

Mercer Law Review

Bob Marley once sang, "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy." Yet, he never went to jail for shooting that sheriff (possibly because he did not shoot the deputy). Instead, this line became known as the starting phrase of one of his most popular songs. While it may make sense to some why Marley's lyrics were art and not a confession to shooting his hometown sheriff, in some states, an artist's lyrics can be used as evidence to prosecute. More specifically, states have differed on the admissibility of a rap artist's lyrics as evidence for prosecution. …

Accelerated Creative Problem Solving And Product Improvement Applied To Experimental Devices In A Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation Class--Improving The Role Of Insight Development Tools As A Generator Of New Ideas In Novel Situations, Douglas Ridolfi

Creativity and Change Leadership Graduate Student Master's Projects

This project uses an action research centered study protocol to examine the effects of a problem-based learning exercise related to bloodstain pattern interpretation in a crime scene processing and general criminalistics class taught as part of an upper division forensic chemistry major in a four year college. The goal is to apply design principles and creative problem solving methods directly adapted to a project involving interpreting a set of crime scene photographs depicting blood spatter and with the aid of guided exercises in ideation and design, lead students into the development of alternate theories of how the bloodstains were created …

Framed By Forensics: Fulfilling Daubert's Gatekeeping Function By Segregating Science From The Adversarial Model, Kayla Marie Mannucci

Cardozo Law Review

The note argues that flawed forensic expert testimony significantly contributes to wrongful convictions, undermining the criminal justice system's objective to acquit the innocent. It highlights how partisan bias, lack of scientific validation, and inadequate judicial gatekeeping under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. have led to the admission of unreliable forensic evidence. The note proposes a reform: requiring neutral, court-appointed experts in high-stakes forensic cases to ensure objective testimony and prevent partisan bias.

Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy

Maine Law Review

In reaching its recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court grappled not with case law but with fundamental questions about the nature of science and its role in law. The court in Daubert addressed the problematic issue of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. In the end the Court rejected as an exclusionary rule the venerable standard set in 1923 by Frye v. United States. Frye held that scientific testimony was to be excluded unless it had gained “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence …

Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson

Maine Law Review

Prosecutorial forensic misconduct has become front page news in Maine. Since April of 1993, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has reversed convictions in three highly publicized cases based on remarks made by the prosecutor. In State v. Steen, the prosecutor asked the defendant to give his opinion concerning the veracity of other witnesses and suggested in closing argument that the favorable testimony given by the defense's expert witness resulted from the fee he had received. The Law Court vacated the gross sexual assault conviction, finding that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument “clearly suggested” to …

Litigation Academy Helps Lawyers Hone Skills 4-30-2018, Katie Mulvaney, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Controlling The Jury-Teaching Function, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

When evidence with a scientific basis is offered, two fundamental questions arise. First, should it be admitted? Second, if so, how should it be assessed? There are numerous participants who might play a role in deciding these questions—the jury (on the second question only), the parties (through counsel), expert witnesses on each side, the trial court, the forces controlling the judicial system (which include, but are not limited to, the appellate courts), and the scientific establishment. In this Article, I will suggest that together, the last two—the forces controlling the judicial system and the scientific establishment—have a large role to …

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

University of Miami Law Review

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created “tests” that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as “propensity” evidence, or “once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer” evidence.

This Article examines …

State V. Nelson: Determining "Reasonable Suspicion" For Investigatory Stops In Maine, Sandra Denison Shannon

Maine Law Review

In 1994 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held in State v. Nelson that a police officer's observation of motorist Theodore Nelson consuming a single can of beer over a one-hour time period did not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Nelson thereafter illegally operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This Note analyzes the Law Court's decision in Nelson. In its analysis, this Note compares Nelson to several other Maine opinions and recommends that, if the Maine Law Court is to continue to adhere to both objective and subjective standards in …

Trammel V. United States: Bad History, Bad Policy, And Bad Law, Michael W. Mullane

Maine Law Review

In 1980 the United States Supreme Court decided Trammel v. United States. The opinion changed the Spouses' Testimonial Privilege, overturning centuries of consistent case decisions. The Court based its decision on the history and effect of privilege and a straw poll of state legislative and court decisions on the issue. The Court concluded its decision would permit the admission of more spousal testimony without impairing the benefits the privilege was supposed to confer on spouses. The Court's decision in Trammel was wrong on three counts. The first was bad history overlaid with questionable analysis. The survey of the state's treatment …

Privileging Public Defense Research, Janet Moore, Ellen Yaroshefsky, Andrew L. Davies

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Empirical research on public defense is a new and rapidly growing field in which the quality of attorney-client communication is emerging as a top priority. For decades, law has lagged behind medicine and other professions in the empirical study of effective communication. The few studies of attorney-client communication focus mainly on civil cases. They also tend to rely on role-playing by non-lawyers or on post hoc inquiries about past experiences. Direct observation by researchers of real-time defendant-defender communication offers advantages over those approaches, but injecting researchers into the attorney-client dyad is in tension with legal and ethical precepts that protect …

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created "tests" that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of "crimes, wrongs, or other acts" if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as "propensity" evidence, or "once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer" evidence.

This Article examines …

The Limits Of Law In The Evaluation Of Mitigating Evidence, Emad H. Atiq, Erin L. Miller

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Capital sentencers are constitutionally required to "consider" any mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Under Lockett v. Ohio and its progeny, neither statutes nor common law can exclude mitigating factors from the sentencer's consideration or place conditions on when such factors may be considered. We argue that the principle underlying this line of doctrine is broader than courts have so far recognized. A natural starting point for our analysis is judicial treatment of evidence that the defendant suffered severe environmental deprivation ("SED"), such as egregious child abuse or poverty. SED has played a central role in the Court's elaboration of …

It’S Not The Thought That Counts: Pennsylvania Quietly Made Rape And Idsi Strict Liability Crimes, Jordan E. Yatsko

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1982, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Williams, wherein the court held that a defendant charged with rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) cannot use a mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s consent. The court relied on the reasoning that a defendant’s mens rea is not an element of either rape or IDSI. Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, however, requires that where the legislature has failed to expressly require a finding of mens rea in the text of the statute, at least recklessness must be imputed to each material element.

This Comment …

The Missing American Jury: Restoring The Fundamental Constitutional Role Of The Criminal, Civil, And Grand Juries, Anna Roberts

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This is a bold book. Professor Thomas urges that the jury—criminal, civil, and grand—be recognized as a fourth “branch” (p. 5). She asserts that procedures that have contributed to the reduction of the jury’s power—including summary judgment and state prosecution without grand juries—are unconstitutional. And, as a Plan B if her constitutional arguments do not prevail, she proposes big changes that include informing juries about sentence exposure, presenting juries with any charges that were offered in plea bargaining, and requiring that juries justify their verdicts.

Understanding The Sexual Assault Kit Backlog In Pennsylvania, Kallie Crawford, Lyndsie Ferrara

Graduate Student Research Symposium

According to the FBI, to date, there are more than 400,000 untested sexual assault kits nationwide. While this is a huge issue that cannot be solved overnight, continual improvements and changes are needed to reduce and hopefully eliminate the backlog.

This research examines work going on nationwide and aims to better understand the backlog issues specifically in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the research examines a program utilized by the law enforcement community that garnered necessary resources. First, a comprehensive review of improved practices in proactive jurisdictions of Ohio, Houston, Texas, and Detroit, Michigan was conducted to identify general policies and procedures that …

Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell

Maine Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …

A Call For Consistency: State V. Caouette Is No Longer Viable In Light Of Colorado V. Connelly And State V. Eastman, Donald W. Macomber

Maine Law Review

This Article challenges the Law Court's expansive interpretation in State v. Caouette of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination embodied in Article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution in the context of reviewing claims of the involuntariness of a confession. The court's declaration that a reliable confession must be suppressed on state constitutional grounds based solely on a suspect's internal factors, and in the absence of any police overreaching in obtaining the confession, contradicted two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence requiring some form of government action to implicate the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of …

The Romberg Imbalance: Mitchell V. State Upsets The Equilibrium Of Admissible Field Sobriety Test Results In Georgia, Eric F. Kramer

Mercer Law Review

In Mitchell v. State, a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court held that the State must provide a scientific foundation for the Romberg Balance test (Romberg test) before its results are admissible against a defendant in DUI cases. To satisfy the standard set by the supreme court in Harper v. State, the State must show that a scientific procedure has reached a "stage of verifiable certainty" to produce reliable results. Additionally, the State must show that the procedure was "substantially performed ... in an acceptable manner." The trial court acts as the gatekeeper by determining the admissibility of a scientific …

To Understand Us V. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme V. Shamrock', Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

The February 27, 2018, Supreme Court argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp. raises profound questions about issues of executive power, corporate governance, technology, judicial power and international affairs. At stake for the government is the scope of its investigative authority to obtain information located in a foreign country, irrespective of that country’s laws. At stake for Microsoft is its ability to organize its international corporate affairs and the predictability of the laws that will govern those affairs. This article analyzes the potential effects of this critical Supreme Court case.

Panel Discussion: Author Meets Critic

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion: Ethnography, Ethics & Law

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion: Ethnographic Evidence

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett

Maine Law Review

In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …

Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford

Maine Law Review

In recent years, several decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court have addressed the comments of prosecutors in final argument before criminal juries. Three of those decisions in particular have caused concern among prosecutors and have stirred discussion in the Maine legal community. In vacating convictions in State v. Steen, State v. Casella, and State v. Tripp, the Law Court focused on the language used by the prosecutors during closing argument and concluded that those prosecutors impermissibly expressed personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendants, or witnesses called by the defendants. This Article examines …

Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Maine Law Review

For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States governed the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Frye decision in 1923. Under Frye, the proponent of testimony had to demonstrate that the expert's testimony was based on a generally accepted theory or technique. However, in 1993--seventy years after the rendition of the Frye decision--another court sitting in Washington, the United States Supreme Court, overturned the standard. The Court did so in its now celebrated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision. In the interim between …

Goldilocks And The Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Criticism of the hearsay exceptions embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence has reached a fever pitch in recent years. With scholars calling for the abrogation of the entire hearsay regime or of individual exceptions within it and the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules exploring hearsay amendments, the time for genuine hearsay soul-searching may be at hand. This Article suggests that aggressive proposals to scuttle existing doctrine entirely in favor of alternative approaches to hearsay are overly broad, rejecting the benefits of significant portions of existing doctrine that are functioning well and threatening costly consequences that could make matters worse …

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …