Evidence Commons^™

The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Mapp Goes Abroad, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. Criminal prosecutions for child molestation and abuse are likely the hardest cases of all. Apart from their horrific facts, they present tremendous evidentiary challenges to prosecutors, primarily because of the victims' youth. Consequently, Georgia's appellate courts have repeatedly fashioned new evidentiary rules to assist prosecutors in such cases. Whether these hard cases make bad law no doubt depends on one's perspective. Without question, however, appeals involving child molestation and abuse continue to make new law, and the current survey period was no exception.

Impeaching Lying Parties With Their Statements During Negotiation: Demysticizing The Public Policy Rationale Behind Evidence Rule 408 And The Mediation-Privilege Statutes, Lynne H. Rambo

Washington Law Review

Virtually all American jurisdictions have laws—either rules of evidence or mediation-privilege statutes or both—that exclude from evidence statements that parties make during negotiations and mediations. The legislatures (and sometimes courts) that have adopted these exclusionary rules have invoked a public policy rationale: that parties must be able to speak freely to settle disputes, and they will not speak freely if their statements during negotiation can later be admitted against them. This rationale is so widely revered that many courts have relied on it to prohibit the use of negotiation statements to impeach, even when the inconsistency of the negotiation statement …

Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler

Michigan Law Review

Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …

Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Neil Vidmar, Richard O. Lempert, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, Stephan Landsman, Robert Maccoun, Joseph Sanders, Harmon M. Hosch, Saul Kassin, Marc Galanter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Daniels, Edith Greene, Joanne Martin, Steven Penrod, James Richardson, Larry Heuer, Irwin Horowitz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summaries a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the past quarter century. The great weight of that evidence challenges the view that jurors abdicate their responsibilities as fact finders when faced with expert evidence or that they are pro-plaintiff, anti-defendant, and anti-business.

The Petitioners and amici on behalf of petitioners make a number of overlapping, but empirically unsupported, assertions about jury behavior in response to expert testimony, namely that juries are frequently incapable of critically evaluation …

One Crime, Many Convicted: Dissociative Identity Disorder And The Exclusion Of Expert Testimony In State V. Greene, Mary Eileen Crego

Washington Law Review

In State v. Greene, the Supreme Court of Washington held that expert testimony about Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) was not admissible to support an insanity or diminished-capacity defense. Even though the court acknowledged DID as a generally accepted medical disorder, the court reasoned that such testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact, as required by Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 702, because the court has not established a specific standard for determining the legal responsibility of a defendant with multiple personalities. This Note argues that the Greene court had sufficient scientific evidence to establish a legal standard …

Lilly V. Virginia: Answering The Williamson Question—Is The Statement Against Penal Interest Exception "Firmly Rooted" Under Confrontation Clause Analysis?, Kim Mark Minix

Mercer Law Review

In Lilly v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is too large a class for effective Confrontation Clause analysis. However, the Court held that confessional statements made by an accomplice that incriminate a criminal defendant, a subcategory of this exception, are not within a "firmly rooted" exception as recognized under the Confrontation Clause.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: Daubert'S Gatekeeping Method Expanded To Apply To All Expert Testimony, Jeanne Wiggins

Mercer Law Review

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the United States Supreme Court held that while the Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony are neither determinative nor exhaustive, the gatekeeping function articulated in Daubert requires an examination of the reliability of all types of expert testimony and is not limited in application to scientific expert testimony.

Revisiting Indiana's Rule Of Evidence 404(B) And The Lannan Decision In Light Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415, Ellen H. Meilaender

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Underwood offers a critique of the present state of scientific and forensic evidence. In the context of discussing four challenges to the field, the author arms the practitioner with strategies and tactics for making effective use of scientific and forensic testimony.

Evidence, Marc T. Treadwell

Mercer Law Review

This survey marks the fourteenth year the author has surveyed Eleventh Circuit evidence decisions. During these years there has been, in the author's opinion, an unmistakable trend-a trend that continued during the current survey period. 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 carefully defers to district judges. The abuse-of-discretion standard that has always governed evidentiary issues on appeal now seems to be the standard of review in practice as well as in name.

Absent some action by Congress, the most extensive changes …

Beating Again And Again And Again: Why Washington Needs A New Rule Of Evidence Admitting Prior Acts Of Domestic Violence, Linell A. Letendre

Washington Law Review

Batterers in Washington who use violence to control their intimate partners routinely avoid conviction and punishment due to the difficulties of prosecuting domestic violence cases. Prosecutors often face complex problems, such as recanting victims, lack of other witnesses, and juries inherently biased against battered women. Although some Washington prosecutors have found ways to introduce evidence of prior domestic violence in certain limited circumstances, Washington Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally precludes the use of evidence showing prior domestic violence. This Comment argues that this evidence rule prevents the admission of highly probative evidence of prior abuse against current or past victims …

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purporting to be scientific is admissible only if it possesses sufficient indicia of scientific validity. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court more questionably held that opinion evidence based on "technical" and "specialized" knowledge must meet the same admissibility threshold as scientific testimony. This Article addresses the implications of these two decisions for opinion evidence presented by mental health professionals in criminal trials.

Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact Of The Arizona Reform, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the …

The Law's Scientific Revolution: Reflections And Ruminations On The Law's Use Of Experts In Year Seven Of The Revolution, David L. Faigman

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining The."Task At Hand": Non-Science Forensic Science After Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, D. Michael Risinger

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Junk Philosophy Of Science?: The Paradox Of Expertise And Interdisciplinarity In Federal Courts, David S. Caudill, Richard E. Redding

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Implications Of Daubert For Economic Evidence In Antitrust Cases, Roger D. Blair, Jill Boylston Herndon

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Reliable Forensic Economics In The Post-Daubert/Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies From Antitrust, Andrew I. Gavil

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact Of Kumho Tire On Forensic Identification Science, Michael J. Saks

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity And Evidentiary Admissibility, John Monahan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doubts About Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata As A Case Study, Christopher Slobogin

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishing The Standard For A Physician's Patient Diagnosis Using Scientific Evidence: Dealing With The Split Of Authority Amongst The Circuit Courts Of Appeal, Jack E. Karns

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Perils Of Courtroom Stories, Stephan Landsman

Michigan Law Review

As Janet Malcolm1 tells it, Sheila McGough was a middle-aged single woman living at home with her parents and working as an editor and administrator in the publications department of the Carnegie Institute when she decided to switch careers and go to law school. She applied and was admitted to the then recently accredited law school at George Mason University. After graduation, she began a solo practice in northern Virginia that involved a significant amount of stateappointed criminal defense work. In 1986, approximately four years after her graduation from law school, McGough received a call requesting assistance from an incarcerated …

Who Should Control The Decision To Call A Witness: Respecting A Criminal Defendant's Tactical Choices, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

A law student approached me not long ago to discuss a problem he had encountered while helping to prepare a criminal case for retrial. The defendant's first trial ended with a hung jury. The defendant, Steven Brown, now faced a second trial on the same misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer. Although the defendant still wanted to go to trial, Brown told defense counsel that he did not want his elderly father to have to testify again. From defense counsel's standpoint, the father's testimony was critical because he was the only witness corroborating the defendant's version of the event. …

The Timing Of Opinion Formation By Jurors In Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The question of when and how jurors form opinions about evidence presented at trial has been the focus of seemingly endless speculation. For lawyers, the question is how to capture the attention and approval of the jury at the earliest possible point in the trial. Their goal is to maximize the persuasiveness of their arguments--or at least to minimize the persuasiveness of those of the opposing side. Judges, in contrast, are more concerned about prejudgment. They regularly admonish jurors to suspend judgment until after all the evidence has been presented and after the jurors have been instructed on the law. …

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry Scheck

Articles

The article explores the intricate relationship between criminal prosecutions of police officers and subsequent Section 1983 civil rights claims. Professor Barry C. Scheck examines how the outcomes of criminal cases significantly influence civil litigation, highlighting challenges such as the "blue wall of silence," racial profiling, and legal strategies like Monell claims. The thesis underscores the strategic importance of federal intervention and the use of pattern and practice actions to address systemic issues in law enforcement.

Evidentiary Considerations In Civil Cases, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

Handout from a presentation at the Maryland Judicial Institute outlining character evidence and providing the text of the applicable Rules.

Toward A Level Playing Field: Challenges To Accomplice Testimony In The Wake Of United States V. Singleton, James W. Haldin

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.