Evidence Commons^™

"Electronic Fingerprints": Doing Away With The Conception Of Computer-Generated Records As Hearsay, Adam Wolfson

Michigan Law Review

One night, in the hours just before daybreak, the computer servers at Acme Corporation's headquarters quietly hum in the silence of the office's darkened hallways. Suddenly, they waken to life and begin haphazardly sifting through their files. Several states away, a hacker sits in his room, searching through the mainframe via an internet connection. His attack is quick-lasting only a short five minutes-but the evidence of invasion is apparent to Acme's IT employees when they come in to work the next morning. Nearly a year later, federal prosecutors bring suit in the federal district court against the person they believe …

The Accuracy And Manipulability Of Lost Profits Damages Calculations: Should The Trier Of Fact Be "Reasonably Certain"?, Jonathan T. Tomlin, David Merrell

ExpressO

The accuracy and manipulability of calculations for lost profits damages are critical determinants of the ability of harmed parties to receive just compensation in a wide range of legal cases including antitrust, fraud, false advertising, intellectual property infringement, and breach of contract. They are also important determinants of the deterrent effects of the law. Using a sample of over 5,000 U.S. firms, we show that simple damages methods are capable of being substantially inaccurate. We also show that damages methods in general are highly susceptible to manipulation. In the absence of reasonable justifications for why particular data sets and methods …

Taking Facts Seriously–Again, William Twining

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

The New Black's, Peter Tiersma

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

True Lies: The Constitutional And Evidentiary Bases For Admitting Prior False Accusation Evidence In Sexual Assault Prosecutions, Jules Epstein

ExpressO

The admission of false accusation evidence in sexual assault prosecutions has been ruled on inconsistently by courts nationally. This article identifies the constitutional bases for admitting false accusation evidence as both impeachment and substantive (non-character) proof, and re-focuses Confrontation Clause analysis post-Crawford on the scope of the cross-examination right; offers a definition for what constitutes a false accusation and the level of proof requisite to its admission; and addresses social and policy concerns attendant to its presentation.

Interdisciplinary Trends In Evidence Scholarship, Roger C. Park, Michael J. Saks

ExpressO

Abstract In recent decades, evidence scholarship published in leading law reviews has become markedly interdisciplinary, while treatises and texts continue to fill the need for doctrinal analysis. The authors describe this trend and set forth its recent history. They review and critique scholarship that applies concepts and insights from psychology, probability theory, philosophy, feminism, and economics to the law of evidence. They also comment on the pitfalls, benefits and prospects of interdisciplinary evidence scholarship

Summary Of Bass-Davis V. Davis, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 39, Charles R. Cordova, Jr.

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Learning The Wrong Lessons From "An American Tragedy": A Critique Of The Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, David E. Bernstein

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

This paper is a critique of Margaret Berger and Aaron Twerski, “Uncertainty and Informed Choice: Unmasking Daubert”, forthcoming the Michigan Law Review. Berger and Twerski propose that courts recognize a cause of action that would allow plaintiffs who claim injury from pharmaceutical products, but who do not have sufficient evidence to prove causation, to recover damages for deprivation of informed choice. Berger and Twerski claim inspiration from the litigation over allegations that the morning sickness drug Bendectin caused birth defects. Considering the criteria Berger and Twerski suggest for their proposed cause of action in the context of Bendectin, it appears …

Overenforcement, Alex Stein, Richard Bierschbach

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This year's survey must begin, as have most recent surveys, with a lament over the decreasing number of noteworthy Eleventh Circuit decisions addressing evidentiary issues. In stark contrast to the days when the Eleventh Circuit rigorously examined district court evidentiary decisions and freely reversed those decisions, the Eleventh Circuit now studiously defers to district court judges. The abuse of discretion standard, which has always been the standard of review of a district court's evidentiary rulings, has become the standard of review in practice as well as in name.

Not "Voluntary" But Still Reasonable: A New Paradigm For Understanding The Consent Searches Doctrine, Ric Simmons

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

In Search Of A Theory Of Public Memory: The State, The Individual, And Marcel Proust, Brian F. Havel

Indiana Law Journal

This Article posits the existence and pervasiveness of an official public (or State) memory that is primarily constructed using public law devices and statements of official policy. While official public memory serves the purposes of social control and stability, it also seeks to mask contestation and is, accordingly, neither complete nor authentic. Using philosophical, scientific, and literary sources, this Article demonstrates how the affective (emotional) memory that is unique to individuals creates a permanent potential for contestation and authenticity and therefore sets a natural conceptual limit to the power of officially managed memory to contrive the past. To help establish …

Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the 1980s, a wide range of courts and commentators have expressed concern over large punitive damages awards handed out by civil juries against a wide array of tortfeasors. A late 2001 study revealed that from 1985 to 2001, eight multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards were granted, with four of them being handed down in the years 1999 to 2001 alone.' Not surprisingly, all but one of these verdicts were handed down against large corporations. Among the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens in particular has regularly noted the especially dangerous tendency the current punitive …

Tragedy Of The Scaffold, Tragedy Of The Trial: Tragedy, Representation Of The Public, Innermost Conviction, And Personal Judgments, Christian Biet

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Securing A Journalist's Testimonial Privilege In The International Criminal Court, Anastasia Heeger

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article argues that given the unique and significant contribution of journalists to uncovering and documenting war crimes, the ICC should amend its evidentiary rules to recognize a qualified journalist's privilege. In doing so, the ICC should clearly identify who may benefit from such a privilege, clarify a procedure for balancing the need of reportorial testimony against prosecution and defense interests, and, lastly provide for mandatory consultations between the court and affected news organizations or journalists before allowing the issuance of a subpoena. Such clarity will benefit not only journalists working in war zones and the ICC, but will provide …

Holmes V. South Carolina: Brief Amicus Curiae Of Certain Professors Of Evidence Law In Support Of Petitioner, Samuel R. Gross

Appellate Briefs

This amicus curiae brief is submitted on behalf of Professors of Evidence Law at various United States Law Schools. Petitioner Bobby Lee Holmes and Respondent the State of South Carolina have consented to the filing of this brief.

Amici are professors of law with a particular interest in the application of state and federal rules of evidence. Their qualifications are set forth in the Appendix.

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He proffered an abundance of evidence pointing to the guilt of another man, nearly all of which the trial court excluded. The South Carolina Supreme Court …

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well-founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement conference, …

The Plight Of Putative Father: Public Policy V. Paternity Fraud, Maegan Padgett

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—The Fourth Amendment Challenge To Dna Sampling Of Arrestees Pursuant To The Justice For All Act Of 2004: A Proposed Modification To The Traditional Fourth Amendment Test Of Reasonableness, Kimberly A. Polanco

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Long-Term Solutions For Children In The Child Welfare System: Families For Teens, Alexandra Lowe

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article advocates for the Families for Teens Initiative, which focuses on engaging teenagers in the foster care system to identify and connect with family resources that are often overlooked. The initiative aims to prevent poor outcomes such as homelessness and incarceration by emphasizing the importance of maintaining family connections and providing normal developmental opportunities for teens.

A Blow To Domestic Violence Victims: Applying The "Testimonial Statements" Test In Crawford V. Washington, Melissa Moody

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

No abstract provided.

Reenvisioning Law Through The Dna Lens, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In recent times, no development has transformed the practice of criminal justice as much as DNA evidence. In little over fifteen years, DNA profiling has produced nothing short of a paradigm shift.1 For police and prosecutors, DNA has become a potent weapon for identifying and convicting criminals. Trace biological material left at a crime scene now provides critical evidence for generating leads through "cold searches" of DNA databases and for convicting defendants at trial. At the same time, for defense attorneys, DNA has become an invaluable tool for seeking exonerations, because just as DNA can link defendants to crimes, it …

Under-Intervention Versus Over-Intervention, David Lansner

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony On Sexually Abused Child Syndrome In A Child Protective Proceeding: More Hurtful Than Helpful, Mary Ellen Reilly

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that Sexually Abused Child Syndrome (SACS) testimony is unreliable and should not be admitted as corroborating evidence in child protective proceedings. It contends that SACS lacks scientific validity, is not recognized as a medical diagnosis, and fails to meet evidentiary standards for reliability. The author asserts that allowing SACS testimony violates due process rights and risks wrongful outcomes, advocating for stricter standards for expert testimony and alternative methods of substantiating abuse allegations.

Mitochondrial Dna: Emerging Legal Issues, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article will briefly survey some of the current and emerging legal issues surrounding mtDNA evidence. Parts I and II discuss basic evidentiary questions, including mtDNA's reliability and admissibility under Daubert as well as the potential problem of jury confusion regarding the probative value of mtDNA. Part III considers the broader potential of mtDNA to supplant microscopic hair analysis, a technique often criticized for its subjectivity and high error rate. Finally, Part IV explores the unique privacy concerns raised by the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, specifically in the context of DNA databanks.

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …