Evidence Commons^™

"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nontestimonial Declarations Against Penal Interest: Eschewing The Corroboration Requirement For Inculpatory Statements, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2008), Michael Duffy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Always Be Disclosing: The Prosecutor's Constitutional Duty To Divulge Inadmissible Evidence, Brian D. Ginsberg

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constable Blunders But Isnt Punished Does Hudson V Michigans Abolition Of The Exclusionary Rule Extend Beyond Knockandannounce Violations, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Harnessing The Hired Guns: The Substantive Nature Of Ohio Revised Code 2743.43 Under Article Iv, Section 5(B) Of The Ohio Constitution, Patrick Vrobel

Journal of Law and Health

Under Article IV, Section 5(B), rules of procedure that impact the substantive rights of Ohio citizens are considered far too important to be encroached upon by the judiciary. Rules affecting substantive rights, therefore, have been expressly delegated to the legislature. Because rules that regulate the competency of medical experts inevitably encroach upon the ability of a tort victim to seek redress in a court of law, such rules impact substantive rights in very real and tangible ways. As a result, the medical expert statute must control. To find otherwise would permit the judiciary to encroach upon the substantive rights of …

More Views From The Ivory Tower: The Kiss Principle - Keep It Simple, Solicitor, David Spratt

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Bosnia V. Serbia: Lessons From The Encounter Of The International Court Of Justice With The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia, Rebecca Hamilton, Richard J. Goldstone

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article uses the recent judgment of the ICJ in Bosnia v. Serbia to highlight the potential problems that arise when international courts have to adjudicate on overlapping situations. It describes the dispute between the ICJ and the ICTY on the appropriate legal standard for the attribution of state responsibility, and finds that the ICJ’s approach in this case suggests that those keen to minimize the fragmentation of international law between adjudicative bodies should not overlook the need for consistency within those bodies.With regard to fact finding, this article raises serious concerns about the manner in which the ICJ relied …

The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges.Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether it …

Proving Causation: The Holism Of Warrant And The Atomism Of Daubert, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Proportionality In The Post-Hoc Analysis Of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Conor R. Crowley, Leslie Wharton

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brain Images As Legal Evidence, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Adina Roskies, Teneille R. Brown, Emily Murphy

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper explores whether brain images may be admitted as evidence in criminal trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which weighs probative value against the danger of being prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to fact finders. The paper summarizes and evaluates recent empirical research relevant to these issues. We argue that currently the probative value of neuroimages for criminal responsibility is minimal, and there is some evidence of their potential to be prejudicial or misleading. We also propose experiments that will directly assess how jurors are influenced by brain images.

Goldberg V. Boone: Getting Away With “Murder”— An Attempt To Exploit The Arbitrary Limits On Cross-Examination Questioning, Brigham J. Lundberg

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Even Better Than The Real Thing: How Courts Have Been Anything But Liberal In Finding Genuine Questions Raised As To The Authenticity Of Originals Under Rule 1003, Colin Miller

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Anglo-American And Continental Systems: Marsupials And Mammals Of The Law., Richard O. Lempert

Book Chapters

When Peter Tillers invited me to participate in this festschrift for Mirjan Damaška, I proposed to write a short concluding essay reviewing the articles in this volume and drawing links between them. Perhaps I should have anticipated that this would be no easy task, and maybe even have foreseen that it was an assignment I would eventually shun. I should have known that there would not be the six to eight articles I anticipated but the 17 that have been submitted. Had I thought more, I would have realised that there would be many people, myself included, who would seek …

Addressing The Evidentiary Sources Of Wrongful Convictions: Categorical Exclusion Of Evidence In Capital Statutes, Rory K. Little

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Pretrial Discovery Of Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

What's Wrong With Litigation-Driven Science? An Essay In Legal Epistemology, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Commenting On Credibility In Kansas: A Constructive Criticism Of State V. Pabst, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

In some respects, this is a cautionary tale about overruling precedent. The Kansas Supreme Court openly overruled its own thirty-two year old precedent in deciding State v. Pabst in 2000. Cautionary tales and precedents aside, this Article is primarily about how trials are conducted, and how much latitude an attorney should have in Kansas to talk directly to jurors in closing argument about all the issues-including witness credibility-that will decide the case. Pabst forced attorneys to change the way they conduct closing arguments. While the result in Pabst was right, the rationale the court used to support the decision was …

Ethical Issues In Collaborative Lawyering, Barbara Glesner Fines

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.

In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …

Beyond Manson And Lukolongo: A Critique Of American And Zambian Eyewitness Law With Recommendations For Reform In The Developing World, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article is a comparative analysis of U.S. and Zambian eyewitness law. I analyze the two countries' approaches to eyewitness law in the context of the longstanding debate on whether rules or standards best effectuate underlying social values. With regard to the United States, I conclude that either a rule or a standard for admission of eyewitness evidence could provide effective protection of defendants' due process rights while also promoting the societal interest in admitting reliable proof of guilt. I then conduct the first comprehensive analysis of Zambian eyewitness cases and conclude that Zambian eyewitness law is, in some ways, …

Tainted Provenance: When, If Ever, Should Torture Evidence Be Admissible, Michael P. Scharf

Faculty Publications

Written by a consultant to the United Nation's newly established Cambodia Genocide Tribunal, "Tainted Provenance" examines one of the most important legal questions that will face the Tribunal as it begins its trials next year -- whether evidence of the Khmer Rouge command structure that came from interrogation sessions at the infamous Tuol Sleng torture facility should be considered notwithstanding the international exclusionary rule for evidence procured by torture. The issue of whether there should be exceptions to the torture evidence exclusionary rule (and how those exceptions should be crafted to avoid abuse) has significant implications beyond the international tribunal, …

Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report, prepared for use in a criminal proceeding and identifying a substance as cocaine, "testimonial" evidence and so subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

If an accused murdered a witness, should he be deemed to have forfeited the right under the Sixth Amendment "to be confronted with" the witness, absent proof that the accused committed the murder for the purpose of rendering her unavailable as a witness?

Case Comment - People V. Nelson: A Tale Of Two Statistics, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, defendants who were identified as a result of a search through a database of DNA profiles have argued that the probability that a randomly selected person would match a crime-scene stain overstates the probative value of the match. The statistical literature is divided, with most statisticians who have written on the subject rejecting this claim. In People v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of California held that when the random-match probability is so small as to make it exceedingly unlikely that any unrelated individual has the incriminating DNA profile, this statistic is admissible in a database-search case. …

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran

Articles

I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …

Acknowledging Guilt: Forcing Self-Identification In Post-Conviction Dna Testing, Tonja Jacobi, Gwendolyn Carroll

Faculty Articles

This Essay formally illustrates how it is possible to force prisoners to self-identify as innocent or guilty by deciding whether to seek post­conviction DNA testing. Additionally, it shows why other systems that aim to reduce the number of guilty petitioners seeking post-conviction DNA testing create perverse incentives, and why only additional incarceration can effectively encourage innocent and guilty prisoners alike to self-identify. This will reduce costs on the judicial system by discouraging guilty prison­ers from seeking post-conviction DNA tests. It will also make it faster and easier for actually innocent prisoners to seek the tests they need for timely exoneration. …

The “Two-Tiered” Approach To E-Discovery: Has Rule 26(B)(2)(B) Fulfilled Its Promise?, Thomas Y. Allman

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

We have now had more than a year to assess the impact of the 2006 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Amendments”) on discovery of electronically stored information. At the core of these provisions is the “two-tiered” discovery process. Under Rule 26(b)(2)(B), restyled as “Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored Information,” a party is permitted to utilize information from “reasonably accessible” sources of electronically stored information to respond to all forms of discovery without seeking information from inaccessible sources, provided that they are identified. Reasonably accessible sources are those which are available without “undue burden or cost.”

Asymmetrical Warfare: The Cost Of Electronic Discovery In Employment Litigation, Rodney A. Satterwhite, Matthew J. Quatrara

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

A fundamental tenet of the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “2006 Amendments”) is the notion that parties can agree and cooperate on issues relating to electronic discovery. Many of the rule changes now either require parties to meet and confer about electronic discovery or presuppose a certain level of dialogue between the parties regarding such issues.

A Search For Balance In The Discovery Of Esi Since December 1, 2006, Douglas L. Roger

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

An explosion in the amount and discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) threatens to clog the federal court system and make judicial determination of the substantive merits of disputes an endangered species. It is interesting that this information discovery explosion has skipped over Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in part that the federal rules “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”