Evidence Commons^™

Lost Lives: Miscarriages Of Justice In Capital Cases, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In case after case, erroneous conviction for capital murder has been proven. I contend that these are not disconnected accidents, but systematic consequences of the nature of homicice prosecution in the general and capital prosecution in particular - that in this respect, as in others, death distorts and undermines the course of the law.

Lilly V. Virginia: A Chance To Reconceptualize The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court once again has the opportunity to grapple with the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendmel).t. The basic facts of Lilly are simple, for they present the ageold problem of accomplice confessions. Three men, Gary Barker and Ben and Mark Lilly, went on a crime spree, during which one of them shot to death a young man they had robbed and kidnaped. Ben Lilly was charged with being the triggerman, and Barker testified to that effect at Ben's trial. Mark did not testify. But Mark had made a statement to the …

Psychiatric Evidence In Criminal Trials: To Junk Or Not To Junk?, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Truth And Its Rivals In The Law Of Hearsay And Confrontation (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law)." , Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this paper, I will look at the problem of hearsay and confrontation through the lens offered by this symposium's theme of "truth and its rivals." I will ask: To what extent does the law of hearsay and confrontation aspire to achieve the goal of truth in litigation? To what extent does it, or should it, seek to achieve other goals, or to satisfy other constraints on the litigation system? And, given the ends that it seeks to achieve, what should the shape of the law in this area be? My principal conclusions are as follows: In most settings, the …

Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to be confronted with the Witnesses against him."' The Confrontation Clause clearly applies to those witnesses who testify against the accused at trial. Moreover, it is clear enough that confrontation ordinarily includes the accused's right to have those witnesses brought "face-toface," in the time-honored phrase, when they testify.2 But confrontation is much more than this "face-to-face" right. It also comprehends the right to have witnesses give their testimony under oath and to subject them to crossexamination. 3 Indeed, the Supreme Court has treated the accused's …

"My God!" Is This How A Feminist Analyzes Excited Utterances, Randolph N. Jonakait

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

No abstract provided.

Prior Bad Acts And Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jason L. Mccandless

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This note presents a Due Process analysis of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. These rules, which took effect in July 1995, overturn the exclusionary requirements of Rule 404 exclusively in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation. The new rules allow similar crimes to serve as evidence for purposes other than those stated in Rule 404(b). Now, federal prosecutors may offer evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged sexual misconduct to demonstrate that the defendant committed the sex offense for which he currently is being charged. Rules 413 and 414 reevaluate the historic concern that evidence of prior acts …

Confrontation And The Definition Of Chutzpa, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

You may know the standard illustration of chutzpa - the man who kills both his parents and then begs the sentencing court to have mercy on an orphan. In this article, I discuss a case of chutzpa that is nearly as outlandish - the criminal defendant who, having rendered his victim unavailable to testify, contends that evidence of the victim's statement should not be admitted against him because to do so would violate his right to confront her. I contend that in a case like this the defendant should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right. On the same …

Accomplices' Confessions And The Confrontation Clause, Welsh S. White

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The admissibility of an accomplice's confession against a criminal defendant has long been a subject of concern in Anglo-American law. The Supreme Court has held that accomplices' confessions to the police are presumptively unreliable under the Confrontation Clause, without clearly expressing what facts would lend to the reliability of such statements. However, Professor White argues that in Williamson v. United States, the Court adopted an empirical framework that will make such confessions more likely to be admissible against an accused.

In this Article, Professor White first explores the traditional skepticism towards accomplices' confessions and explains the nature of the current …

Lessons For The United States: A Greek Cypriot Model For Domestic Violence Law, Joan L. Neisser

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The purpose of this Article is twofold: to view the problem of domestic violence victims not wishing to testify against their abusers through the lenses of different feminist perspectives; and to use the Greek Cypriot experience as a model to test the value of these theories when developing legal policies addressing this issue.

Rule 607: Who May Impeach

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 412: Sex Offense Cases; Relevance Of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior Or Alleged Sexual Disposition

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 702: Testimony By Experts

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 704: Opinion On Ultimate Issue

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(18): Learned Treatises

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 901: Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook

Cleveland State Law Review

This article addresses the need to formulate a uniform and predictable approach to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony which relates the law to the facts. First, it briefly discusses the history of expert opinion testimony. Second, it discusses, through a case analysis, the difficult, if not impossible task that courts have assumed in attempting to differentiate between two types of expert opinions: (1) those which are, by their nature, factual; and (2) those which require some level of legal analysis-directly relating the law to the facts of the case. Finally, this article suggests an alternative approach which is arguably …

Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein

Articles

This is not a conventional article. It is an edited version of messages sent to an Internet discussion list. The listings begin with the mention of a recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, parts of which are reproduced below. The listings soon move to broader issues concerning probability and other formal systems, their limitations, and their uses either in court or as devices for understanding legal proof.

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …

Some Implications Of Daubert And Its Potential For Misuse: Misapplication To Environmental Tort Cases And Abuse Of Rule 706(A) Court-Appointed Experts, Ellen Relkin

Cardozo Law Review

This Commentary will address an array of issues underlying and emerging from the disputes in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its inevitable progeny, from a practitioner's perspective representing plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. It is intended to provide real examples that debunk the quaint but unrealistic notion that science is pure and insulated from economics and politics, the propagandized suggestion that it is the plaintiff's expert who promotes "fringe" or "junk" science, and the belief that epidemiology is the sine qua non of proving causation of a disease. It will also address the potential perils of the …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining The Bases For Admissibility Of Expert Scientific Testimony, Clifton T. Hutchinson, Danny S. Ashby

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is not only, or even primarily, a case about the viability of Frye v. United States and "general acceptance" as the criterion for evaluating expert testimony. Principally, it is a case about the preconditions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the sole provision in the Federal Rules that authorizes the use of expert testimony. The question as framed by petitioners in the course of argument was whether trial courts may screen scientific expert testimony under any real test. The Supreme Court answered this question strongly in the affirmative.

Petitioners' recurring theme was that Rule …

Taking Daubert’S “Focus” Seriously: The Methodology/Conclusion Distinction, Kenneth J. Chesebro

Cardozo Law Review

Last June's United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejected the Frye "general acceptance" test for scientific evidence, and went on to make "some general observations" about proper admissibility analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert was the Court's first decision squarely addressing the expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and United States Law Week called Daubert "probably the most important procedural case of the term."

Should Federal Evidence Rules Trump State Tort Policy? The Federalism Values Daubert Ignored, Michael H. Gottesman

Cardozo Law Review

I want to explore issues that the Supreme Court should have addressed in Daubert but did not. The Court decided that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") assigns a "gatekeeping" function to federal trial judges, who are to exclude expert scientific opinions that do not meet a standard of "reliability" vaguely sketched out in the Court's opinion.

The Daubert case involved exclusively state substantive law issues and was in federal court only because the defendant removed it from state court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Court held the gatekeeping function applicable in diversity actions, …

The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: The Supreme Court Catches Up With A Decade Of Jurisprudence, Arvin Maskin

Cardozo Law Review

Over the past several years a host of new civil damage theories has emerged, notably in the mass tort area. These include claims for increased risk of disease, fear of disease, hedonic damages, immunotoxicity, and medical surveillance. In the great majority of these cases, the dispositive issue reduces to causation, which invariably turns upon scientific evidence. Moreover, the stakes in these cases have greatly escalated. For example, the $180 million settlement in the Agent Orange case seemed like a lot of money in 1984, until several years later when the Dalkon Shield litigation, which involved the sale of a single …

Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks

Cardozo Law Review

Since the earliest days of the use of expert witnesses, judges (and more recently legislatures) have struggled to design the juridical intersection where law and science cross paths. The effort has not met with notable success. This situation could be changing, however. Last term, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted a novel approach to the age-old problem of scientific evidence. The -Court determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence require scientific evidence to be scientifically valid before it enters the courtroom. The Court has served notice that experts should trade in their crystal balls …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell

Cardozo Law Review

Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acknowledges that law and science have different goals, but it fails to recognize the implications of those differences for legal process. Recent increases in the scientifically-based claims brought in the federal courts, and in the size and complexity of the litigation in which such claims are made, have raised the stakes in the debate. At the same time, scientific concepts of relativity, uncertainty, and multiple causation are at odds with simple, legal notions about fact-finding and cause and effect. This disparity between legal and scientific understandings over the admission …

Character Evidence, James L. Kainen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Panel Discussion

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.