Evidence Commons^™

How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits plaintiffs from introducing evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show that the defendant is to blame. Among its purported justifications, the rule prevents hindsight bias from unduly influencing jury decisions. Nonetheless, plaintiffs often take advantage of the rule’s numerous exceptions to introduce evidence of remedial measures for other purposes (e.g. to prove feasibility). Fearing that the exceptions could swallow the rule, some courts will even exclude evidence that fits into one of these exceptions because it is ostensibly too prejudicial. Alternatively, other courts instruct juries that they should only use the evidence for the …

Immigration Unilateralism And American Ethnonationalism, Robert Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This paper arose from an invited symposium on "Democracy in America: The Promise and the Perils," held at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Spring 2019. The essay places the Trump administration’s immigration and refugee policy in the context of a resurgent ethnonationalist movement in America as well as the constitutional politics of the past. In particular, it argues that Trumpism’s suspicion of foreigners who are Hispanic or Muslim, its move toward indefinite detention and separation of families, and its disdain for so-called “chain migration” are best understood as part of an assault on the political settlement of the …

A Review Of The Wrongful Convictions Reader: A Comprehensive Resource For Students, Faculty, And Practitioners, Stephanie Roberts Hartung

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Professor Stephanie Roberts Hartung reviews The Wrongful Convictions Reader, a 2019 book by Russell D. Covey and Valena E. Beety.

Privacy And Security Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Three recent initiatives -by the United States, European Union, and Australiaare opening salvos in what will likely be an ongoing and critically important debate about law enforcement access to data, the jurisdictional limits to such access, and the rules that apply. Each of these developments addresses a common set of challenges posed by the increased digitalization of information, the rising power of private companies delimiting access to that information, and the cross-border nature of investigations that involve digital evidence. And each has profound implications for privacy, security, and the possibility of meaningful democratic accountability and control. This Essay analyzes the …

Driving The Drug War: Difficulties With Proper Detection Of Thc And Measurement Of Marijuana Intoxication For The Purposes Of Dui Prosecution, Sage La Rue Zitzkat

Dissertations and Honors Papers

No abstract provided.

The Bb Gun: A Harmless Toy Or Deadly Weapon? Practical Guidance For Objective Fact Finding In A Criminal Case, Steven N. Gosney, John Zak

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

The Disappointing History Of Science In The Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, And The Ongoing Crisis Of “Junk Science” In Criminal Trials, Jim Hilbert

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided one of the most important cases concerning the use of science in courtrooms. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , the Court addressed widespread concerns that courts were admitting unreliable scientific evidence. In addition, lower courts lacked clarity on the status of the previous landmark case for courtroom science, Frye v. United States. In the years leading up to the Daubert decision, policy-makers and legal observers sounded the alarm about the rise in the use of "junk science" by so-called expert witnesses. Some critics went so far as to suggest that American businesses …

Between Brady Discretion And Brady Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland presented prosecutors with new professional challenges. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence in its possession that could be exculpatory. If the prosecution fails to timely turn over evidence that materially undermines the defendant’s guilt, a reviewing court must grant the defendant a new trial. While determining whether evidence materially undermines a defendant’s guilt may seem like a simple assessment, the real-life application of such a determination can be complicated. The prosecution’s disclosure determination can be complicated under the Brady paradigm because the …

Detecting And Preventing Insurance Fraud: State Of The Nation In Review, Johnny C. Parker

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence On Fire, Valena Beety, Jennifer Oliva

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Fire science, a field largely developed by lay “arson investigators,” police officers, or similar first responders untrained in chemistry and physics, has been historically dominated by unreliable methodology, demonstrably false conclusions, and concomitant miscarriages of justice. Fire investigators are neither subject to proficiency testing nor required to obtain more than a high school education. Perhaps surprisingly, courts have largely spared many of the now debunked tenets of fire investigation any serious scientific scrutiny in criminal arson cases. This Article contrasts the courts’ ongoing lax admissibility of unreliable fire-science evidence in criminal cases with their strict exclusion of the same flimsy …

Myth, Inference And Evidence In Sexual Assault Trials, Lisa Dufraimont

Articles & Book Chapters

In sexual assault cases, the ability to distinguish myths and stereotypes from legitimate lines of reasoning continues to be a challenge for Canadian courts. The author argues that this challenge could be overcome by clearly identifying problematic inferences in sexual assault cases as prohibited lines of reasoning, while allowing the defence to bring forward evidence that is logically relevant to the material issues so long as it does not raise these prohibited inferences.

This paper advances that judges should take a broad view of relevance as an evidentiary approach in the adjudication of sexual assault cases. This approach allows for …

An Erie Approach To Privilege Doctrine., Megan M. La Belle

Scholarly Articles

This short essay considers the HannStar and Silver cases and begins a discussion of the impact that the Erie doctrine has—and, more importantly, ought to have—on privilege law. While Erie is considered by many as “one of the modern cornerstones of our federalism,” the doctrine is important too for the change it can effect through the cross pollination of ideas among tribunals. Because privilege laws reflect deliberate policy choices by legislatures and courts, the Erie doctrine arguably plays a particularly vital role in developing this area of the law.

Raising The Cost Of Using Title Iii Wiretap Evidence, Derik T. Fettig

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Virtual Hearings And Blockchain Technology Solutions In Criminal Law, Chantell Bergquist

Political Science Theses and Capstones

Technology has evolved and raided our personal and professional lives. Although the courts are not immune to the advancement and integration of technology, the courts are not keeping up with relevant technological advancements. Historically, courts have been hesitant to embrace new technologies despite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates the right to a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Likewise, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct have determined attorneys must “keep abreast of …

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

Save Your Breath: A Constitutional Analysis Of The Criminal Penalties For Refusing Breathalyzer Tests In The Wake Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Kylie Fisher

Washington Law Review Online

Statutes that criminally penalize suspected drunk drivers who refuse to submit to testing of their blood alcohol concentration emerged in a number of states as a way to better enforce implied consent statutes that require drivers submit to such testing. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court held that statutes that criminally punish individuals for refusing a blood test were unconstitutional but upheld criminal refusal statutes regarding breath tests. Much of the reasoning in the majority’s opinion stemmed from a shallow perception of the invasion that breath tests pose to individual privacy interests. Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion noted …

From Clause A To Clause Z: Narrative Transportation And The Transactional Reader, Susan M. Chesler, Karen J. Snedden

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Warrant Requirement Resurgence: The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin Priester

Journal Publications

Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the "warrant requirement," one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. The …

Punishment Without Process: Victim Impact Proceedings For Dead Defendants, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

After Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in jail, two judges allowed his accusers to speak in court. This article argues that the proceedings were inappropriate because the criminal case ends when the defendant dies. If the conviction and appeal are not final, there is no finding of guilt, and the defendant is still presumed innocent. Allowing accusers to speak at this time violates the principle of due process and threatens to undermine faith in judges and the criminal justice system in general. While courts are at times legally required to hear from victims of crimes, they were not allowed to do …

Parol Evidence Rules And The Mechanics Of Choice, Gregory Klass

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Scholars have to date paid relatively little attention to the rules for deciding when a writing is integrated. These integration rules, however, are as dark and full of subtle difficulties as are other parts of parol evidence rules. As a way of thinking about Hanoch Dagan and Michael Heller’s The Choice Theory of Contracts, this Article suggests we would do better with tailored integration rules for two transaction types. In negotiated contracts between firms, courts should apply a hard express integration rule, requiring firms to say when they intend a writing to be integrated. In consumer contracts, standard terms …

Attorney-Client Privilege & International Arbitration, Ibrahim Shehata

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This article attempts to offer a new perspective to the existing debate concerning the applicable standard of attorney-client privilege in international commercial and investment arbitration. This article starts by analyzing the main convergences and divergences in the concept of attorney-client privilege across four national jurisdictions. In this regard, this article sheds light upon the divergence of opinions between international arbitration scholars in the literature and how international arbitration operates in practice. For instance, the standard of the "most-protective law," which most arbitration scholars vouch should be the right answer, is not actually the most featured standard in the published arbitral …

Judicial Conflict Resolution In Plea Bargaining As The Golden Mean Between The Adversarial And Inquisitorial Legal Systems, Golan Luzon

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This article seeks to develop a better understanding of plea bargaining as a mechanism of judicial conflict resolution in criminal law. Plea bargaining plays a significant role in both the adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. The article examines how the plea-bargaining model is designed in both legal systems by comparing two civil law countries (Italy and Germany) with two common law countries (England and Wales and the U.S.). I argue that two developments-a mechanism similar to plea bargaining in inquisitorial systems and judges' participation in the criminal plea bargaining negotiations in adversarial legal systems-are part of the same phenomenon seeking …

Confidences Worth Keeping: Rebalancing Legitimate Interests In Litigants' Private Information In An Era Of Open-Access Courts, Jeffrey W. Sheehan

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The ideal of the public trial in open court continues to guide decisions about public access to courts and their records, even as cases are increasingly decided "on the papers." This is still the case when those "papers" take the form of electronic documents that can be uploaded, downloaded, copied, and distributed by anyone with an internet connection. A series of opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinforcing this ideal of public access to court records and unsealing district court filings offers an opening to reconsider core values that must inform our treatment of private …

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

Preface To The Third Edition By The General Editor. Preface To The New Wigmore: A Treatise On Evidence: Selected Rules Of Limited Admissibility, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

As General Editor of this treatise, my principal job is to recruit an excellent team of authors; no one in the modern day could hope to replicate John Henry Wigmore's one-man show. David Leonard, not only a superb scholar but also an exemplary person through and through, was one of the first people I asked, and to my delight he joined the project. He tackled his assignment with great ability and broad vision--and also graciousness in dealing with a slew of editorial comments from me. With a degree of efficiency and industry that can perhaps best be described in this …

General Editor's Introduction To The Treatise, Richard D. Friedman

Other Publications

There is a story -- recalled rather wistfully by an American in 1995, shortly after the thrashing of Young America by New Zealand's Black Magic -- that in 1851 Queen Victoria came to watch the first race for what became known as the America's Cup. “Who is leading?” she asked the signal master of the royal yacht. “The America,” came the reply. “Which boat is in second place?” the Queen wanted to know. The signal master replied: “There is no second, ma'am.'DD'

This story -- which, though perhaps apocryphal, has gained a life of its own -- captures perfectly the …

Burying Evidence's Dead Hand, Matthew D. Provencher

Roger Williams University Law Review

When the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence were adopted, they displaced all inconsistent case law existing at the time. Though the Rules retain a great deal of the evidence practice that preceded them, there is much in evidence practice that changed with their adoption. Rhode Island courts have consistently applied Rule 403 in a manner that comports with practice as it existed before the enactment of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. That practice, though, is inconsistent with the plain language of the Rule. These doctrines must be discarded.

Pleading Guilty To Innocence: How Faulty Field Tests Provide False Evidence Of Guilt, Kaelyn Phelps

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Poetry In Motion: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Forward Progress As An Imperative, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

This Article dives into the long-standing debate about the propriety of altering the time-honored Federal Rules of Evidence. Noted authorities, such as the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, have eschewed any modification to the Rules, claiming that they must remain essentially fixed in their original form to maximize their utility to trial advocates and to avoid wasteful dislocation costs that accompany updates. Unlike the many scholarly works examining the merits and demerits of particular evidence rules, this Article shines a light on the lesser examined process of amending the Federal Rules of Evidence, revealing a taxonomy of evidentiary circumstances or trigger …