Evidence Commons^™

The Need For A Research Culture In The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan Koehler, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Simon A. Cole, Barry A.J. Fisher, Itiel E. Dror, Max Houck, Kieth Inman, David H. Kaye, Glenn Langenburg, D. Michel Risinger, Norah Rudin, Jay Siegel

Faculty Working Papers

The methods, techniques, and reliability of the forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines in particular, have faced significant scrutiny in recent years. Critics have attacked the scientific basis for the assumptions and claims made by forensic scientists both in and out of the courtroom. Defenders have emphasized courts' long-standing acceptance of forensic science evidence, the relative dearth of known errors, and the skill and experience of practitioners. This Article reflects an effort made by a diverse group of participants in these debates, including law professors, academics from several disciplines, and practicing forensic scientists, to find and explore …

What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

The number of trials continues to decline andfederal civil trials have almost completely disappeared. This essay attempts to address the significance of this loss, to answer the obvious question, "So what?" It argues against taking a resigned or complacent attitude toward an important problem for our public culture. It presents a short description of the trial's internal structure, recounts different sorts of explanations, and offers an inventory of the kinds of wounds this development would inflict.

Moral Character, Motive, And The Psychology Of Blame, Janice Nadler, Mary-Hunter Morris Mcdonnell

Faculty Working Papers

Blameworthiness, in the criminal law context, is conceived as the carefully calculated end product of discrete judgments about a transgressor's intentionality, causal proximity to harm, and the harm's foreseeability. Research in social psychology, on the other hand, suggests that blaming is often intuitive and automatic, driven by a natural impulsive desire to express and defend social values and expectations. The motivational processes that underlie psychological blame suggest that judgments of legal blame are influenced by factors the law does not always explicitly recognize or encourage. In this Article we focus on two highly related motivational processes – the desire to …

If The Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value Of Forensic Science Testimony, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

The probative value of forensic science evidence (such as a shoeprint) varies widely depending on how the evidence and hypothesis of interest is characterized. This paper uses a likelihood ratio (LR) approach to identify the probative value of forensic science evidence. It argues that the "evidence" component should be characterized as a "reported match," and that the hypothesis component should be characterized as "the matching person or object is the source of the crime scene sample." This characterization of the LR forces examiners to incorporate risks from sample mix-ups and examiner error into their match statistics. But how will legal …

Proficiency Tests To Estimate Error Rates In The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

A proficiency test is an assessment of the performance of laboratory personnel using samples whose sources are known to the proficiency test administrator but unknown to the examinee. Proficiency tests can help identify reasonable first pass estimates for the rates at which various types of errors occur. It is crucial to obtain error rate estimates because the reliability and probative value of forensic science evidence is inextricably linked to the rates at which examiners make errors. Without such information, legal decision makers have no scientifically meaningful way of thinking about the risk of false identification and false non-identification associated with …

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

The Affective Blindness Of Evidence Law, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Evidentiary rules and practices reveal a folk psychological view of emotion, placing it at odds with reason. Specifically, many substantive and procedural rules of evidence explicitly require jurors to turn off their emotions in favor of rational, so-called “top-down,” executive thinking. In order to make the point that this dichotomy between emotion and reason is simultaneously reflected in our evidence law and also empirically wrong, I will address how emotion is treated in (a) the use of limiting instructions, (b) the exclusion of prejudicial evidence, (c) credibility assessments, (d) sentencing and damages instructions, (e) instructions related to the “heat of …

Narrative Implications Of Evidentiary Rules, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

Advocates are increasingly conscious of courtroom disputes as forms of story-battles, in which the parties present competing narratives. But the rules of evidence -- determining which facts can be incorporated into the presentation of the parties' stories -- can also often best be understood from a narrative point of view. This paper examines narrative features underlying evidentiary rules dealing with leading questions, "speaking objections," and hearsay.

Spoliation Of Electronic Evidence: Sanctions Versus Advocacy, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

This Article proposes that courts should refrain from imposing adverse inference jury instructions as sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. This proposal bears some similarity to the approach taken twenty years ago by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, which constrained courts' ability to sanction. Instead of imposing an adverse jury instruction as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, courts should allow evidence of spoliation to be admitted at trial if a reasonable jury could find that spoliation had occurred and if the spoliation was relevant to a material issue. If a court allows the introduction of evidence of spoliation …

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sky Is Not Falling: How The Anticlimactic Application Of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts To Oklahoma's Laboratory Report Procedures Allows Room For Improvement, Danae Vansickle Grace

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hearsay After Crawford: A Practitioner's Guide, Marcia G. Cooke

St. Thomas Law Review

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Although it may appear simple, concise and direct, the language of the Sixth Amendment has been the subject of much discussion.' The Confrontation Clause has been inevitably comingled with the hearsay rules, and determining when an out-of-court statement violates the rights of criminal defendants has been no easy task. For many years, it was uncontested, as established in Ohio v. Roberts, that to avoid violating a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, the …

A Punishing Court Docket, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Williams V. Illinois And The Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony By A Surrogate Witness Violate The Confrontation Clause?, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party. …

Schultz V. Bank Of America: A Fly In The Financial Buttermilk - Clarifying The Common Knowledge Exception To Improve Litigation Efficiency And Bank Safety, Lauren M. Elfner

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Fact Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations Of International Criminal Convictions, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rule 801(D)'S Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory And A Suggested Amendment, Sam Stonefield

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines Rule 801(d)’s oxymoronic treatment of admissions and prior statements as “not hearsay.” This “not hearsay” label is inaccurate – the evidence is hearsay, as defined in Rule 801(c) – and is inconsistent with the analytically important and well-established use of the term not hearsay to describe evidence that is actually not hearsay.

The Article tells the story of how the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence ended up with such a confused and confusing label and proposes an amendment that would classify admissions and prior statements as hearsay exceptions and place each in a new, separate, …

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

The Admissibility Of Electronic Business Records, Ken Chasse

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The business record provisions of the Evidence Acts determine a record’s admissibility by evidence of its history, which must be the product of “the usual and ordinary course of business” (or comparable “business activity” wording). The electronic record provisions determine a record’s admissibility by the, “integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored.” The difference is, records management (RM) based on “paper records concepts” versus “electronic records systems concepts.” The former is subjective — each business determines its own “usual and ordinary course of business”; the latter, objective — in accor- dance with authoritative standards …

Seeking Truth On The Other Side Of The Wall: Greenleaf’S Evangelists Meet The Federal Rules, Naturalism, And Judas, Nancy J. Kippenhan

Faculty Publications and Presentations

An inquiry that seeks truth by accepting only natural answers excludes the possibility of the sacred or supernatural, building a wall that forecloses a complete exploration for the truth it seeks. Without analysis, critics dismiss sources presenting supernatural explanations, and those who believe sacred works have no factual foundation accept without investigation any popular theory that appears attractive. The rules of evidence expressly seek truth, wherever it lies. Noted legal scholar Simon Greenleaf used evidentiary principles to demonstrate the factual credibility of the Gospels in his Testimony of the Evangelists. This Article examines Greenleaf’s analysis, applying current rules of evidence …

Unscrambling The Confusion: Applying The Correct Standard Of Review For Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, Robert E. Steinbuch

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reinforcing The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad After Blocking Statutes, Data Privacy Directives, And Aerospatiale, Brian Friederich

San Diego International Law Journal

There has always been tension between European countries and the United States on the topic of evidence gathering. Much of that tension stems from the inherent differences between common and civil policies and methods. Until the Hague Convention, the process for obtaining evidence abroad was cumbersome and unreliable. The Hague Convention sought to change that by providing signatory countries more effective methods of cooperating with each other in international litigation. However, the Hague Convention has not been able to achieve its purpose, at least not in the United States. U.S. courts have interpreted the Hague Convention as optional, meaning it …

When Facts Are Thin On The Ground, Julia Romasevych, Paul Antiss, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

Fact-finding at the international tribunals is not as precise as we think. Nancy Combs, Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, explores this in her new book 'Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions'.

Scientific Evidence As Foreign Law, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Most contemporary debates about scientific evidence focus on admissibility under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. That bias is quite understandable-after all, it is the framework imposed by the United States Supreme Court. Daubert, however, rests on a fundamental assumption: that courts should treat scientific facts like any other adjudicative facts ultimately left to the jury. Perhaps the involvement of specialized knowledge requires judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure some basic level of reliability, but under Daubert, scientific facts are still just facts. As I will argue, scientific facts fit awkwardly into the conventional framework for conceptualizing and …

Individualization Claims In Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Jonathan Koehler, Michael J. Saks

Faculty Working Papers

In a 2008 paper published in the Vanderbilt Law Review entitled "The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence," we argued that no scientific basis exists for the proposition that forensic scientists can "individualize" an unknown marking (such as a fingerprint, tire track, or handwriting sample) to a particular person or object to the exclusion of all others in the world. In this special issue of the Brooklyn Law Review, we clarify, refine, and extend some of the ideas presented in Fallacy. Some of the refinements are prompted by Professor David Kaye's paper, also in this issue of the Review, in …

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Faculty Working Papers

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientific Fraud, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

Although scientific fraud is rare, when it occurs, it needs to be identified and documented. This article discusses two of the most notorious cases in forensic science. Part I focuses on the misconduct of Fred Zain, a serologist with the West Virginia State Police crime laboratory and later with the County Medical Examiner’s laboratory in San Antonio, Texas. Part II examines the misconduct of Joyce Gilchrist, a forensic examiner with the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Adverse Inference About Adverse Inferences: Restructuring Juridical Roles For Responding To Evidence Tampering By Parties To Litigation, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

For at least two centuries, Anglo-American courts have responded to a party's evidence tampering by allowing the opponent to argue to jurors that they should draw an adverse inference against the offending party in deciding the merits of the case. This Article argues that the use of such inferences, and invitations to draw them, should be radically curtailed, not only because of the ambiguities and risks of prejudice that such inferences entail, but more importantly because they reflect and contribute to a confusion of roles in which the jury is enlisted to participate in the management of the pre-trial conduct …

Coconspirators, “Coventurers,” And The Exception Swallowing The Hearsay Rule, Ben L. Trachtenberg

Faculty Publications

In recent years, prosecutors - sometimes with the blessing of courts - have argued that when proving the existence of a “conspiracy” to justify admission of evidence under the Coconspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule, they need show only that the declarant and the defendant were “coventurers” with a common purpose, not coconspirators with an illegal purpose. Indeed, government briefs and court decisions specifically disclaim the need to show any wrongful goal whatsoever. This Article contends that such a reading of the Exception is mistaken and undesirable. Conducted for this article, a survey of thousands of court decisions, including the …