Evidence Commons^™

Ohio's "Similar Acts Statute": Its Uses And Abuses, David L. Herbert, Dick W. Mount Jr.

Akron Law Review

Notwithstanding the lack of uniform analysis of the Act, this article should isolate the main areas of confusion and hopefully provide some "food for thought" which may in itself help to resolve the ambiguities of the statute. Moreover, the discussion offered herein may prompt the recently established Ohio Evidence Rules Committee to devote some time to the formulation of a clearer evidentiary statement on prosecutorial use of "other acts" testimony in criminal cases.

Admissibility Of Voiceprints Not Limited To "Corroborative Purposes" Unted States V. Franks, R. Brent Chapman

Akron Law Review

ON FEBRUARY 12, 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided United States v. Franks,' affirming a district court ruling, which permitted the use of voiceprints for purposes of identification and marking the first occasion in which a circuit court had held such evidence admissible.

Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York, Lee Ann Johnson

Akron Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in Patterson v. New York upheld the constitutionality of a New York murder statute which places on the defendant the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance. The Court thereby determined that New York courts in applying the statute against defendant Gordon Patterson had not violated his right to due process of law

Motor Vehicles; Driving While Intoxicated; Section 4511.19; Implied Consent; Aurora V. Kepley, Amie Bruggeman

Akron Law Review

With the constant problem of accidents caused by drinking drivers and the fairly reliable results of breathalyzer tests established, judicial decisions have upheld the statutory scheme providing for its use through an era when rights of an accused have been greatly expanded. It has been held that the breathalyzer test results are not testimonial but physical evidence and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, the accused has no constitutional right to refuse to take the test, and the prosecutor may comment at the trial on his refusal relying on its' probative value as to whether …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph, Edward P. Mazak

Akron Law Review

In some joint criminal trials the right of one defendant to refrain from self incrimination may come into conflict with the right of another defendant to confront the witnesses against him. The problem arises when one defendant refuses to testify at trial after having made a voluntary, out of court statement which tends to implicate a second defendant. The rules of evidence allow the statement to be introduced at trial only against the party making it; its use against the implicated defendant is excluded as hearsay.' The rules also provide for the court to instruct the jury on the limited …

The Use Of Prior Inconsistent Statements Of Opinion To Impeach: Ohio's Position, Richard Milligan

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine prior inconsistent statements of opinion and point out why their exclusion, when offered to impeach, is improper. Ohio's three leading cases on this point will serve to exemplify the improper characterization and exclusion of these statements.

Presumptions And Modal Logic: A Hohfeldian Approach, John P. Finan

Akron Law Review

The difficulty of distinguishing between an inference and a presumption, a difficulty that bedevils tort and evidence teachers, (see Appendix I) among others, may be dispelled by a study of the deontic nature of permissible inferences and presumptions. Using scholastic terminology, an inference is a function of the intellect, not the will. Therefore, deontic notions of permission and duty seem foreign to inference. However, deontic notions are legitimate, because the law, in assigning a fact finding function to judge and jury, uses deontic notions in assigning fact finding competence. Thus, the statement that an inference is not permissible means that …

Hypnosis In Our Legal System: The Status Of Its Acceptance In The Trial Setting, Joel R. Hlavaty

Akron Law Review

Hypnosis is a method of therapy which has been utilized by society for quite some time. Recently, it has gained popularity as a new device to be used in the trial setting. Although it is a legitimate method of therapy in the medical and psychological professions, in the hands of attorneys and the legal system it takes on a whole new life. This new life is plagued with questions of admissibility, reliability and suggestibility. This comment will examine these questions and the use of hypnosis in the various stages of trial. This paper will show that some courts hold such …

Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Voice Spectrography, Linda C. Ashar

Akron Law Review

In State v Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed for the first time the issue of admissibility of voice analysis as identification evidence. The court ruled that expert testimony and exhibits based on voice spectrography analysis are admissible if they are relevant and will assist the trier of fact. Williams also pronounces how Ohio courts should evaluate the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora

Akron Law Review

Wiggins v. State presented two unique issues: (1) whether it was proper to authorize courtroom security personnel to use prophylactic apparel while escorting a defendant merely suspected of having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and (2) the extent to which this handling procedure impacted the jury.

This Note will analyze the Wiggins decision, emphasizing the court's reasoning as it pertains to the following: (1) the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial for defendants either having or being suspected of having AIDS; (2) the permissible exercise of discretion by the trial judge in authorizing precautions during the course of the …

The Trial Judge As Gatekeeper For Scientific Evidence: Will Ohio Rule Of Evidence 102 Frustrate The Ohio Courts' Role Under Daubert V. Merrell Dow?, Michael Lepp, Chrisopher B. Mcneil

Akron Law Review

This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientific innovation. Particular consideration is given to the impact likely to be realized in Ohio trial courts from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

[...]In order to appreciate the significance of Ohio Evidence Rule 102 in this context, it is helpful to first examine some of the events leading to Daubert, especially the application (and in some instances, the rejection) of Frye both in Ohio and at the federal level. Following that, this article will …

Get On Board For The Ride Of Your Life! The Ups, The Downs, The Twists, And The Turns Of The Applicability Of The "Gatekeeper" Function To Scientific And Non-Scientific Expert Evidence: Kumho'sexpansion Of Daubert, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Comment examines the history of scientific and non-scientific expert evidence, its current status, and the future of scientific and non-scientific evidence based on recent court decisions. Part II explores the background of these issues by examining the earlier standard for admitting expert testimony, the effect of Congress’ promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the influential cases in this area. Part III analyzes the importance of subjecting nonscientific expert testimony to the same rigors as scientific expert testimony. Lastly, Part IV predicts the future of expert evidence.

Common Ignorance: Medical Malpractice Law And The Misconceived Application Of The “Common Knowledge” And “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Doctrines, Amanda E. Spinner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Confessions Compelled By Foreign Coercion: A Compelling Question Of Values In An Era Of Increasing International Criminal Cooperation, Geoffrey S. Corn, Kevin Cieply

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article proceeds on a simple and clear premise: a confession extracted by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should never be admitted into evidence in a U.S. criminal trial. Whether accomplished through extending the Due Process or Self-Incrimination based exclusionary rules to foreign official coercion, or by legislative action, such exclusion is necessary to align evidentiary practice regarding confessions procured by foreign agents with our nation's fundamental values as reflected in the Fifth Amendment and our ratification of the CAT. This outcome is not incompatible with Connelly. Rather, this Article explores the limits of the Court's language in …

Dna Storage Banks: The Importance Of Preserving Dna Evidence To Allow For Transparency And The Preservation Of Justice, Cristina Martin

Chicago-Kent Law Review

What is the duty to preserve information in today’s society? In order for humanity to evolve, change and flourish in the future, society needs to preserve its information from the past. In the criminal justice field, preservation of evidence has special significance. DNA evidence in particular has become a helpful aid for innocent defendants who have been improperly imprisoned. Over the past twenty years, the number of exonerations of imprisoned criminal defendants has increased dramatically. With the advancement of technology, old, previously untestable or improperly tested DNA evidence will need to be retested. However, most states do not have proper …

Forced Decryption As Equilibrium—Why It’S Constitutional And How Riley Matters, Dan Terzian

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay considers whether the government can force a person to decrypt his computer. The only courts to consider the issue limited their analyses to rote application of predigital doctrine and dicta. This is a mistake; courts should instead aim to maintain the ex ante equilibrium of privacy and government power. This approach—seeking equilibrium—was just endorsed by the Supreme Court in Riley v. California, a recent Fourth Amendment case. Yet Riley’s rationale also extends to the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, and maintaining equilibrium there requires permitting forced decryption. Because current doctrine can be interpreted as allowing forced decryption, …

Newly Discovered Evidence Of Innocence: Its History And Future Treatment In Montana, E. Lars Phillips

Montana Law Review

No abstract provided.

After Rape Law: Will The Turn To Consent Normalize The Prosecution Of Sexual Assault?, Donald Dripps

Akron Law Review

This essay explores the new rape exceptionalism. My thesis holds that rape exceptionalism is rooted in a divide between elite opinion, reflected in statutes, court decisions, and academic commentary, and popular opinion, as reflected in jury verdicts. Elite opinion values sexual autonomy and suspects, when it does not despise, sexual aggression. Popular opinion supposes that sexual autonomy may be forfeited by female promiscuity or flirtation, and views male sexual aggression as natural, if not indeed admirable...pressions of consent,8 is an academic exercise. If we really want to normalize rape law, we must bypass the jury openly. We can’t conceal the …

Black Boxes: Fmri Detection And The Role Of The Jury, Julie Seaman

Akron Law Review

Before I offer some thoughts on that question, let me mention three real-life cases in which cutting-edge neuroscientific evidence either did – or conceivably might in a not-so-distant future – influence the outcome of a criminal prosecution. In the first case, reported last week in the New York Times, EEG brain-fingerprinting-type evidence was admitted against a woman on trial in India for murdering her husband. She was convicted. In the second case, in England recently, neuroscientists performed an fMRI lie-detection scan on a woman who had previously been convicted of poisoning a child in her care. She claimed that she …

"His Brain Has Been Mismanaged With Great Skill": How Will Jurors Respond To Neuromimaging Testimony In Insanity Defense Cases?, Michael L. Perlin

Akron Law Review

A review of the literature on neuroimaging, predictably, reveals a broad array of positions, promises and prophecies. Carter Snead argues that the ambition of cognitive neuroscientists is “to use the claims of their discipline and the new powers conferred by neuroimaging to overthrow retributive justice as a legitimate justification for criminal sanctions.” In this paper, I do not take sides on this debate. Rather, I discuss a related, but distinctly separate issue: which of these positions will jurors think is right, especially in the context of deciding insanity defense cases. The primary and robust debate that has taken place so …

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The jury trial plays a critical constitutional and institutional role in American jurisprudence. Jury service is, technically, the only constitutional requirement demanded of our citizens and, as such, places an important responsibility on those chosen to serve on any jury, especially within the criminal justice system. Jury research has established that, generally, jurors take their responsibilities seriously; they work with the evidence presented at trial and they reach verdicts that correlate to the narratives they develop throughout the trial. But with estimates of wrongful conviction rates as high as five percent in serious felony cases, how are juries getting it …

Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under The Federal Rules And The Hague Convention On The Taking Of Evidence Abroad In Civil And Commercial Matters: An Exposition Of The Procedures And A Practical Example: In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation, Robert J. Augustine

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

William & Mary Law Review

This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that …

International Arbitration: Demographics, Precision And Justice, Susan Franck, James Freda, Kellen Lavin, Tobias A. Lehmann, Anne Van Aaken

Contributions to Books

ICCA Congress Series No. 18 comprises the proceedings of the twenty-second Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), held in Miami in 2014. The articles by leading arbitration practitioners and scholars from around the world address the challenges, both perceived and real, to the legitimacy of international arbitration.

The volume focusses on the twin pillars of legitimacy: justice, in procedure and outcome, and precision at every phase of the proceedings. Contributions on justice explore issues related to diversity, fairness and whether arbitral institutions can do more to foster legitimacy – based on the responses of nine international arbitral …

Does Removing The Force Element Matter?: An Empirical Comparison Of Rape Statistics In Massachusetts And Colorado, Peter Landsman

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Mitchell V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (Apr. 30 2015), Stacy Newman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Original petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to sustain the privileges asserted by a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice case to his personal counseling and treatment records was granted and denied in part. The court determined 1) Mitchell’s family and marital therapy records were privileged 2) Mitchell’s doctor-patient records were subject to NRS 49.245(3) patient-litigation exception, but 3) the doctor-patient records should have been reviewed in camera by the district court before discovery.

Expanding Wisconsin's Approach To The Business Records Exception, Bryan Whitehead

Marquette Law Review

This Comment analyzes Wisconsin’s application of the business records exception when a litigant seeks the admission of third-party records. In 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, applied a narrow interpretation of the exception’s requirements that stands in contrast to manner in which federal jurisdictions apply the exception in the same context. This Comment addresses the question of whether Wisconsin’s narrower construction of the exception is the best approach to the evidentiary rule. In doing so, this Comment first reviews the federal business record exception, its requirements, and federal courts’ treatment of the foundational …

Is Limited Remand Required If The District Court Admitted Or Excluded Evidence Without A Daubert Analysis?, Robert B. Gilbreath

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Determining When Extrinsic Evidence Not Attached To Or Incorporated By Reference In A Pleading May Be Considered On A Rule 12 Dismissal Motion, Laurence A. Steckman, Rita D. Turner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evaluating The Evaluation: Reliance Upon Mental Health Assessments In Cases Of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse, Sarah F. Shelton

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.