Evidence Commons^™

Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …

“Liking” The Social Media Revolution, Thaddeus A. Hoffmeister

School of Law Faculty Publications

As in other areas of society, social media has significantly influenced the law. Currently, civil and criminal cases can, and often do, turn on an attorney's understanding and use of social media. In the realm of family law, most practitioners view social media as an essential tool-one that could serve as grounds for malpractice if ignored. Even in legal academia-an area long resistant to change-law schools are starting to understand the impact of social media on the law and offer courses like Social Media and Criminal Law and Law and Social Media.

The goal of this essay is not to …

Understanding And Contextualizing Precedents In E-Discovery: The Illusion Of Stare Decisis And Best Practices To Avoid Reliance On Outdated Guidance, Jonathan M. Redgrave, Keltie Hays Peay, Mathea K.E. Bulander

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

But as precedents survive like the clavicle in the cat, long after the use they once served is at an end, and the reason for them has been forgotten, the result of following them must often be failure and confusion from the merely logical point of view.

Frcp 26 Vs. Fre 408: Why Settlement Negotiations Should Be Privileged Against Third-Party Discovery, Andrew Sher

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note proposes that courts should recognize a settlementnegotiation privilege because it will incentivize parties to settle. Settling disputes is beneficial to the judicial system as it is more efficient and effective at resolving disputes than trying cases. Recognizing a settlement-negotiation privilege will increase the number of settlements by avoiding the free-rider problem that the Federal Circuit's approach in In re MSTG will create. Similarly, creating a settlement-negotiation privilege will avoid the uncertainty caused by not recognizing a privilege or requiring heightened standards for discovery. The confidentiality and certainty of a settlement-negotiation privilege will encourage parties to settle as well …

The Hidden Daubert Factor: How Judges Use Error Rates In Assessing Scientific Evidence, John B. Meixner Jr., Shari Seidman Diamond

Scholarly Works

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court provided a framework under which trial judges must assess the evidentiary reliability of scientific evidence whose admissibility is challenged. One factor of the Daubert test, the “known or potential rate of error” of the expert’s method, has received considerably less scholarly attention than the other factors, and past empirical study has indicated that judges have a difficult time understanding the factor and use it less frequently in their analyses as compared to other factors. In this paper, we examine one possible interpretation of the “known or potential rate of …

Detecting Knowledge Of Incidentally Acquired, Real-World Memories Using A P300-Based Concealed-Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld

Scholarly Works

Autobiographical memory for events experienced during normal daily life has been studied at the group level, but no studies have yet examined the ability to detect recognition of incidentally acquired memories among individual subjects. We present the first such study here, which employed a concealed-information test in which subjects were shown words associated with activities they had experienced the previous day. Subjects wore a video-recording device for 4 hr on Day 1 and then returned to the laboratory on Day 2, where they were shown words relating to events recorded with the camera (probe items) and words of the same …

Neuroscientists In Court, Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, Marcus E. Raichle

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being offered in court cases. Consequently, the legal system needs neuroscientists to act as expert witnesses who can explain the limitations and interpretations of neuroscientific findings so that judges and jurors can make informed and appropriate inferences. The growing role of neuroscientists in court means that neuroscientists should be aware of important differences between the scientific and legal fields, and, especially, how scientific facts can be easily misunderstood by non-scientists,including judges and jurors.

This article describes similarities, as well as key differences, of legal and scientific cultures. And it explains six key principles about neuroscience that …

Group To Individual Inference In Scientific Expert Testimony, Christopher Slobogin, David Faigman, John Monahan

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A fundamental divide exists between what scientists do as scientists and what courts often ask them to do as expert witnesses. Whereas scientists almost invariably inquire into phenomena at the group level, trial courts typically need to resolve cases at the individual level. In short, scientists generalize while courts particularize. A basic challenge for trial courts that rely on scientific experts, therefore, concerns determining whether and how scientific knowledge derived from studying groups can be helpful in the individual cases before them (what this Article refers to as "G2i'). To aid in dealing with this challenge, this Article proposes a …

The Exclusionary Rule As A Symbol Of The Rule Of Law, Jenia I. Turner

SMU Law Review

Throughout South America, Southern and Eastern Europe, and East Asia, more than two dozen countries have transitioned to democracy since the 1980s. A remarkable number of these have adopted an exclusionary rule (mandating that evidence obtained unlawfully by the government is generally inadmissible in criminal trials) as part of broader legal reforms. Democratizing countries have adopted exclusionary rules even though they are not required to do so by any international treaty and there is no indication that there is widespread popular demand for such rules. This has occurred at a time when the rule has been weakened in the United …

Redefining Relevancy And Exclusionary Discretion In Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’S Indian Evidence Act Of 1872: The Singapore Experiment And Lessons For Other Indian Evidence Act Jurisdictions, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In many jurisdictions, the rules of evidence can often be instrumental in determining the outcome of a dispute. But to what extent can evidence law be controlled by codification, or is it better to leave its regulation and development to the judges via common law? In an attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated evidence statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore’s Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence, while new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse. However, it will be …

Thinking Outside The Box: Limiting The Collection Of Rape Kit Evidence In Acquaintance Rape Trials, Taylor Gamble

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that limiting the collection of rape kit evidence in acquaintance rape cases could strike a balance between reducing victim trauma, conserving resources, and maintaining the integrity of the justice system. While DNA evidence is crucial in stranger rape cases, its utility in acquaintance rapes is limited since the central issue is often consent rather than identity. The analysis weighs the benefits of minimizing invasive exams and protecting victim privacy against the potential loss of probative evidence, ultimately suggesting that the benefits of selective collection outweigh the harms.

Mixed Signals On Summary Judgment, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This essay examines three cases from the Supreme Court’s October Term 2013 addressing the standards for summary judgment. In one case, the Court affirmed summary judgment against a civil-rights plaintiff, in a continued erroneous over-reliance on the certainty of video evidence. In two other cases, the Court rejected the grant of summary judgment against civil-rights plaintiffs, arguably for the first time in quite a while. This essay unpacks the substance and procedure underlying all three decisions and considers the effect of the three cases and what signals they send to lower courts and litigants about the proper approach to summary …

Persuasive Visions: Film And Memory, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

This commentary takes a new look at law and film studies through the lens of film as memory. Instead of describing film as evidence and foreordaining its role in truth-seeking processes, it thinks instead of film as individual, institutional and cultural memory, placing it squarely within the realm of contestability. Paralleling film genres, the commentary imagines four forms of memory that film could embody: memorabilia (cinema verite), memoirs (autobiographical and biographical film), ceremonial memorials (narrative film monuments of a life, person or institution), and mythic memory (dramatic fictional film). Imagining film as memory resituates film’s role in law (procedural, substantive …

Teaching “The Wire”: Crime, Evidence, And Kids, Andrea L. Dennis

Scholarly Works

I have a confession: I have only watched Season 1 of The Wire, and it has been many years since I did that. Thus, both my knowledge and pedagogical use of the show are limited. What explanation can I offer for my failings? I am a Maryland native with family who resides in Baltimore City, or Charm City as it is affectionately called. I worked for several years as an assistant federal public defender in Baltimore City. Over time, I have seen the city evolve, and I have seen it chew up and spit out many good people and some …

Framing The Prosecution, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

The enormous value of Dan Simon’s In Doubt lies not just in its nuanced exploration of the challenges to accurate criminal factfinding, but also in its challenge to us to rethink trials themselves. Even as we endeavor to give criminal defendants the means and license to raise reasonable doubts, we need to think more about when and how those doubts can be allayed. Just because most jurisdictions have not come out of the first round of play – the one in which defendants get the tools to poke holes in the cases against them – does not mean it is …

Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier

Scholarly Publications

Scientific evidence is a field in crisis. The validity and reliability of forensic techniques have been criticized by nearly every actor in the legal community—by attorneys, judges, the legal academy, and even the National Academy of Sciences—and high-profile cases of scientific evidence gone awry have garnered national attention. Policymakers have suggested many solutions to the scientific evidence crisis, including a controversial proposal to remove complex scientific cases from state and federal dockets and to hear those cases instead in a specialized “science court.”

Science court proposals face one substantial hurdle: they have become exceedingly unpopular. But …

Summary Of State V. Kincade, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 102, Shaina Plaksin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether the district court properly excluded evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that did not comply with NRS 179.045(5) because it failed to include either a statement of probable cause or the affidavit upon which probable cause was based.

Evidence, John E. Hall Jr., W. Scott Henwood, Alex Battey

Mercer Law Review

This year's Survey of evidence finds us in a unique position. The overhaul of the Georgia Evidence Code (Evidence Code) went into effect on January 1, 2013. Therefore, appellate cases continue to emerge that interpret and apply the former rules, providing insight and raising questions about how the new rules have changed the face of evidence in Georgia. This Survey highlights cases decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013, that illustrate this tension between the old and new rules of evidence. These cases are presented alongside other …

Hear Me Now: The Admission Of Expert Testimony On Battered Women's Syndrome—An Evidentiary Approach, Matthew Fine

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

No abstract provided.

"Santa Baby, Just Slip A Sable Under The Tree For Me:" Or At Least A Catchall Exception To The Hearsay Rule?, Cynthia Ford

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

This article examines Montana's two rule-based "catchall" or "residual" hearsay exceptions, and a statutory exception that applies only to child declarants in criminal cases.

Promising Protection: 911 Call Records As Foundation For Family Violence Intervention, James G. Dwyer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of Deliberate Miranda Violations: How Two-Step National Security Interrogations Undermine Miranda And Destabilize Fifth Amendment Protections, Lee Ross Crain

Michigan Law Review

As part of the global “War on Terror,” federal agents intentionally delay issuing Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects during custodial interrogations. They delay the warnings presuming that unwarned suspects will more freely offer vital national security intelligence. After a suspect offers the information he has, agents administer Miranda warnings and attempt to elicit confessions that prosecutors can use at the suspect’s trial. No court has ruled on the constitutionality of this two-step national security interrogation process to determine whether admitting the second, warned confession is allowed under Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny. A fragmented Supreme Court examined two-step interrogations …

Summary Of Perez V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 90, Collin Jayne

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined the admissibility of expert testimony on “grooming behavior” by accused sexual offenders and the effect that this behavior has on child victims.

Character, Liberalism, And The Protean Culture Of Evidence Law, Daniel D. Blinka

Seattle University Law Review

It is time to rethink character evidence. Long notorious as the most frequently litigated evidence issue, character doctrine plagues courts, trial lawyers, and law students with its infamously “grotesque” array of nonsensical rules, whimsical distinctions, and arcane procedures. Character is a calculation of social worth and value; it is the sum total of what others think of us, whether expressed as their own opinion or the collective opinions of many (reputation). Once we grasp that character is a social construct, we are in a better position to address some of the problems that plague evidence law. To provide needed clarity …

Is Expert Evidence Really Different?, Frederick Schauer, Barbara A. Spellman

Notre Dame Law Review

The problem with expert evidence is not the inappropriateness of the Daubert approach. The narrow focus on Daubert is misplaced. The real problem is with the more deeply entrenched view that expert evidence should be excluded under circumstances in which analogous non-expert evidence would be admitted. Daubert embodies the distinction between expert and non-expert evidence, but it is that very distinction, and not just Daubert, that is the problem. Daubert has indeed transformed modern evidence law, but perhaps it has awakened us to the need for a more profound transformation, one in which the very foundations of treating expert …

The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance To The Daubert Revolution, David E. Bernstein

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article reviews the history of the evolution of the rules for the admissibility of expert testimony since the 1980s, the revolutionary nature of what ultimately emerged, and the consistent efforts by recalcitrant judges to stop or roll back the changes, even after Rule 702 was amended to explicitly incorporate a strict interpretation of those changes.

Part I reviews the law of expert testimony through the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision. Critics had charged for decades that the adversarial system was a failure with regard to expert testimony. Parties to litigation, they argued, often presented expert testimony of dubious validity because …

"As I Lay Dying:" A Halloween Meditation On The Use Of Dying Declarations In Montana, Cynthia Ford

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

This article discusses the Montana hearsay exception for "dying declarations."

Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Masquerading Justiciability: The Misapplication Of State Secrets Privilege In Mohamed V. Jeppesen--Reflections From A Comparative Perspective, Galit Raguan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Rape Shield Laws And The Social Media Revolution: Discoverability Of Social Media--It's Not Private, Seth I. Koslow

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.