Evidence Commons^™

He Said-She Said: On Credibility And The New Reason, Nancy Rourke

ExpressO

The traditional wisdom in the field of evidence holds that, if there is a direct contradiction in the testimony of two witnesses, one of them must be lying. The jury is to discover which version is more credible. The traditional wisdom is wrong. This article uses an actual criminal case to establish that a direct contradiction in testimony can arise from another source - a fundamental difference of conceptual frame. In this case, both witnesses were telling the truth as they knew it, but were talking past one another. Words that were 100% true in the victim's conceptual frame were …

Believing In Products Liability: Reflections On Daubert, Doctrinal Evolution, And David Owen's "Products Liability Law", Richard L. Cupp

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

The Overlapping Magisteria Of Law And Science: When Litigation And Science Collide, William G. Childs

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals transformed courts’ evaluation of expert testimony. Many courts, applying Daubert, focus extensively on whether the purported expert’s methodology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This focus on peer review results in two unintended consequences that have triggered criticism: litigation-driven scholarship and litigants taking discovery into the peer review process. Critics contend that litigation-driven scholarship is irredeemably biased and that peer review discovery is too often an effort to intimidate scholars from speaking on subjects of public concern.

In this Article, I explore these phenomena and the criticisms of …

Attorney-Client Privilege In The Public Sector: A Survey Of Government Attorneys, Nancy Leong

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Flipping A Coin: A Solution For The Inherent Unreliability Of Eyewitness Identification Testimony, Noah A. Clements

ExpressO

By most accounts, mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. As DNA evidence frees ever more people wrongfully convicted on the basis of mistaken identification testimony, it is worth asking: “What about those cases where there is no DNA evidence?” Study after study shows that eyewitness identifications are unreliable. Courts pay lip service to the concept of reliability, but even after identifications are tainted by suggestion, very few courts actually exclude this tainted identification testimony.

And identifications are powerful. Jurors tend to believe identification testimony more than any other kind. And judges are people …

Wrongful Convictions And Forensic Science: The Need To Regulate Crime Labs, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

DNA testing has exonerated over 200 convicts, some of whom were on death row. Studies show that a substantial number of these miscarriages of justice involved scientific fraud or junk science. This article documents the failures of crime labs and some forensic techniques, such as microscopic hair comparison and bullet lead analysis. Some cases involved incompetence and sloppy procedures, while others entailed deceit, but the extent of the derelictions - the number of episodes and the duration of some of the abuses, covering decades in several instances - demonstrates that the problems are systemic.

Paradoxically, the most scientifically sound procedure …

Warping The Rules: How Some Courts Misapply Generic Evidentiary Rules To Exclude Polygraph Evidence, John C. Bush

Vanderbilt Law Review

Polygraph tests rely on the hypothesis that a subject's body yields physiologically different symptoms if he or she is lying.' When a polygraph test is administered, a mechanical apparatus records the subject's physiological changes, and the polygrapher conducting the examination interprets the data. The techniques for measuring physiological changes vary in their foci, which may include respiration, blood pressure, cardiovascular function, and skin resistance. The polygraph apparatus records changes to one or more of these foci, and a technician, or polygrapher, then analyzes the results to conclude whether the subject has been truthful.

Polygraph results factor into choices ranging from …

Gatekeeping After Gilbert: How Lawyers Should Address The Court's New Emphasis, Brian Benner, Ronald L. Carlson

Popular Media

In the world of modern trials, expert witnesses are the coin of the realm. Lawyers know that most of the time, experts are case-breakers. Their demeanor, knowledge, and presentation ability are key qualities. Accordingly, their persuasive effect on modern lay jurors makes it incumbent on judges to ensure that an expert's opinions are appropriately directed. That means not allowing an economist to testify about the medical dynamics of bone disease, for example.

Fixing The Constable's Blunder: Can One Trial Judge In One County In One State Nudge A Nation Beyond The Exclusionary Rule?, H. Mitchell Caldwell

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Myths Of Thane Rosenbaum, Daniel J. Kornstein

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Law In The Digital Age: How Visual Communication Technologies Are Transforming The Practice, Theory, And Teaching Of Law, Richard K. Sherwin, Neal Feigenson, Christina Spiesel

ExpressO

Law today has entered the digital age. The way law is practiced – how truth and justice are represented and assessed – is increasingly dependent on what appears on electronic screens in courtrooms, law offices, government agencies, and elsewhere. Practicing lawyers know this and are rapidly adapting to the new era of digital visual rhetoric. Legal theory and education, however, have yet to catch up. This article is the first systematic effort to theorize law's transformation by new visual and multimedia technologies and to set out the changes in legal pedagogy that are needed to prepare law students for practice …

Dangerousness And Expertise Redux, Christopher Slobogin

ExpressO

Civil commitment, confinement under sexual predator laws, and many capital and noncapital sentences depend upon proof of a propensity toward violence. This article discusses the current state of prediction science, in particular the advantages and disadvantages of clinical and actuarial prediction, and then analyzes how the rules of evidence should be interpreted in deciding whether opinions about propensity should be admissible. It concludes that dangerousness predictions that are not based on empirically-derived probability estimates should be excluded from the courtroom unless the defense decides otherwise. This conclusion is not bottomed on the usual concern courts and commentators raise about expert …

Who Knew - The Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark G. Boyko, Ryan G. Vacca

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

Questions About Forensic Science: Response, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF OUR REVIEW WAS that forensic individualization/identification science is on course for a "paradigm shift" in which its future will be more scientifically grounded than its past.

Harmon and Budowle take issue with the simple point that traditional forensic science assumes that markings produced by different people and objects are observably different. The notion of uniqueness is widespread in forensic science writing, thinking, and practice. We added the qualifier "discernible" to the uniqueness assumption to indicate that criminalists do not refer to uniqueness in the abstract or as a metaphysical property. They mean that conclusions about object …

Balancing The Scales Of Confidential Justice: Civil Mediation Privileges In The Criminal Arena - Indispensable, Impracticable, Or Merely Unconstitutional, Shawn P. Davisson

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

Daubert Challenges To Fingerprints, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Paranormal, Daubert, Dictionary Court, And A Futuristic Courtroom Drama, Joseph P. Baker

Florida A & M University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the pre-litigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of America Securities, Judge Shira Scheindlin - of the Zubulake e-discovery cases - penned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches of that …

A Study Of Juror Expectations And Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does The "Csi Effect" Exist?, Hon. Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, Gregg Barak

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This article is the first empirical study of jurors designed to investigate the existence and extent of the "CSI effect." The authors conducted a survey of 1027 persons who had been called for jury duty in a Michigan state court during a nine-week period in June, July and August, 2006. This survey examined the summoned jurors' demographic information, television viewing habits, their expectations that the prosecutor would produce scientific evidence and whether they would demand scientific evidence as a condition of a guilty verdict.

This study of juror expectations and demands about scientific evidence in relationship to other types of …

Manson V. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding Of Eyewitness Identification, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 539 (2006), Ruth Yacona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recordings, Transcripts And Translations As Evidence, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

Secretly recorded conversations often play a vital role in criminal trials. However, circumstances such as background noise, accidents, regional or national idioms, jargon, or code may make it difficult for a jury to hear or understand what was said--even if all participants were speaking English. Thus, a recording's value as evidence will often depend on whether an accurate transcript may be distributed to the jury. This Article discusses several legal issues, including: Who should prepare a transcript? What should it contain? How should its accuracy be determined, and by whom? Should the transcript be considered evidence, or only an "aid …

Testimonial Statements, Excited Utterances And The Confrontation Clause: Formulating A Precise Rule After Crawford And Davis, Gary M. Bishop

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article will analyze whether the post-Crawford decisions have been consistent in their treatment of statements that qualify as excited utterances in light of the Confrontation Clause principles and various definitions of testimonial in Crawford. Part II of this Article will provide a discussion of the Crawford decision itself and an analysis of Crawford's treatment of earlier cases in this area. Part III of this Article will provide a discussion and analysis of court decisions that have applied Crawford in the context of excited utterances. It will do this by examining the factors that these courts have considered and emphasized …

Evolving Evidentiary Needs: A Neglected Responsibility, Paul Rice

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Davis/Hammon, Domestic Violence, And The Supreme Court: The Case For Cautious Optimism, Joan S. Meier

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court’s consolidated decision in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana offers something for everyone: by “splitting the difference” between the two cases—affirming one and reversing the other—the opinion provides much grist for advocates’ mills on both sides of this issue. While advocates for defendants’ rights are celebrating the opinion’s continued revitalization of the right to confrontation, which began in Crawford v. Washington, advocates for victims have cause for celebration as well: the decision is notable for its reflection of the Court’s growing—albeit incomplete— awareness and understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and their implications for justice. …

Refining Crawford: The Confrontation Claus After Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana, Andrew C. Fine

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Clarification of the Supreme Court’s newly minted interpretation of the Confrontation Clause was desperately needed, and Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana promised to provide it. Two terms earlier, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court had worked a revolutionary transformation of Confrontation Clause analysis by overruling Ohio v. Roberts and severing the link between hearsay jurisprudence and the Clause. Crawford was hailed by the criminal defense bar, since it seemed to presage a sharp reduction in the frequency of so-called “victimless” trials by holding that “testimonial” hearsay, no matter how reliable, was constitutionally inadmissible in the absence of …

Davis And Hammon: A Step Forward, Or A Step Back?, Tom Lininger

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and lower court judges hoped that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the consolidated cases of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereafter simply Davis) would provide a primer on testimonial hearsay. In retrospect, these hopes were somewhat unrealistic. The Davis ruling could not possibly clear up all the confusion that followed Crawford v. Washington, the landmark 2004 case in which the Court strengthened the right of the accused to confront declarants of testimonial hearsay. In Davis, the Court focused on the facts under review and developed a taxonomy that will be useful in similar cases, but …

Still "Left In The Dark": The Confrontation Clause And Child Abuse Cases After Davis V. Washington, Anthony J. Franze, Jacob E. Smiles

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In his concurring opinion in Crawford v. Washington, Chief Justice Rehnquist criticized the majority for holding that the Confrontation Clause applies to “testimonial” statements but leaving for “another day” any effort to define sufficiently what “testimonial” means. Prosecutors and defendants, he said, “should not be left in the dark in this manner.” Over the next two years, both sides grappled with the meaning of testimonial, each gleaning import from sections of Crawford that seemingly proved their test was the right one. When the Court granted certiorari in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereinafter Davis), hopes were high that …

Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court’s consolidated ruling in United States v. Davis and United States v. Hammon is a classic of the genre of consensus opinions to which the Roberts Court aspired in its first, transitional term. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, contains practical accommodations unusual in a decision by the Court’s fiercest proponent of first principles. The restraint that characterized the term is, of course, more about considerations of logistics (including the desire to avoid re-arguments after the mid-term replacement of Justice O’Connor) than about the alignment of logic. Because it reflects temporary institutional constraints rather than intellectual agreement, the …

Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana: Beating Expectations, Robert P. Mosteller

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

I begin with a question of effectiveness: does the new Confrontation Clause doctrine effectively protect defendants with respect to the most im-portant types of problematic out-of-court statements? Although they leave much room for the introduction of hearsay in the immediate aftermath of crime generally, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (together hereinafter Davis) are better opinions from that broad perspective than I had feared. The new doctrine now covers and provides substantial procedural protection for a very important class of problematic hearsay—statements made to government agents investigating past crime.