Evidence Commons^™

The Right To Evidence, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Although its theoretical basis may be disputed, nobody questions the proposition that a person charged with a crime has a constitutional right to present a defense. Presenting a defense naturally requires access to proof. Access includes not only the availability of evidence, but also its permissible use. Consider some examples: A defendant wants to testify, but his lawyer's threats drive him off the stand. A witness who might be expected to give favorable testimony for the defense appears at trial but refuses to testify. A defense witness wants to testify, but because the defendant failed to notify the prosecutor about …

A Political-Choice Approach To Limiting Prejudicial Evidence, J. Alexander Tanford

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Contingent Fees Without Contingencies: Hamlet Without The Prince Of Demark?, Lester Brickman

Articles

According to conventional wisdom virtually all contingent fee percentages exceeding fifty percent are illegal and excessive, but most lower percentages are valid. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom, an amalgam of the unassailability of the standard one-third rate, notions of fairness versus price gouging, lawyer effort versus lawyer' reward, and the right of a lawyer to contract freely for a fee. It advances instead two propositions for determining the legitimacy of contingent fees. The first is that for a contingent fee to be valid, there must be an actual contingency, which means a realistic risk of nonrecovery. Though this proposition …

A Question Of Necessity: The Conflict Between A Defendant's Right Of Confrontation And A State's Use Of Closed Circuit Television In Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence—Criminal Law—Evidence Of Dna Fingerprinting Admitted For Identification Purposes In Rape Trial. Andrews V. State, Charity Lynn Clayborn

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights.

The search and seizure …

The Admission Of Criminal Histories At Trial, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As part of a continuing series of studies on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investigation and adjudication, the Office of Legal Policy has carried out a review of the law governing the admission of the criminal records of defendants and other persons at trial. The results of this review are set out in this Report.

Webs Of Things In The Mind: A New Science Of Evidence, Peter Tillers

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Evidence and Inference for the Intelligence Analyst by David Schum

Admissibility Of Prior Acquitted Crimes Under Rule 404(B): Why The Majority Should Adopte The Minority Rule, Miguel Manuel Delao

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confusing The Fifth Amendment With The Sixth: Lower Court Misapplication Of The Innis Definition Of Interrogation, Jonathan L. Marks

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines how these courts have applied or misapplied Innis, and concludes that, while many of these decisions are consistent with Miranda and Innis, too many others are not. In order to evaluate these cases, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and significance of Innis. Part I thus considers Innis and its background. Part II then examines lower court decisions applying the Innis test, dividing these decisions into six groups based on the most common factual scenarios. Because the cases deal with factually specific police practices, this method constitutes the most useful way to …

Proof And Prejudice: A Constitutional Challenge To The Treatment Of Prejudicial Evidence In Federal Criminal Cases, D. Craig Lewis

Washington Law Review

The United States Supreme Court held its 1970 decision In re Winship that in criminal prosecutions the Constitution requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Professor Lewis argues that Winship governs the validity of evidence rules in criminal cases and requires that rules of evidence do not impair the reliability of criminal convictions. The author concludes that Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which permits the admission of prejudicial evidence unless the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value, violates this requirement. Rule 403 substantially increases the risk of erroneous decisionmaking and prescribes a balancing test that unconstitutionally places …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

United States V. Shaw: What Constitutes An "Injury" Under The Federal Rape-Shield Statute?, Kethleen Winters

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trower V. Jones: Expanding The Scope Of Permissible Cross-Examination Of Expert Witnesses, Julie A. Correll

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Equivalent Deterrence: A Proposed Alternative To The Exclusionary Rule In Criminal Proceedings, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no other area of American jurisprudence is as controversial as the exclusionary rule. Rejected by all other civilized countries2 and held in contempt by much of the American public, the rule reached its zenith during the Warren Court, only to be chipped away a little at a time by the Burger Court. Indeed, if the rule is ever to die, it seems destined to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. . .

Killing Daddy: Developing A Self-Defense Strategy For The Abused Child, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Frank M. Covey Jr., Barbara J. Luther

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Computer Generated Evidence: The Impact Of Computer Technology On The Traditional Rules Of Evidence, Daniel J. Lynch Honorable, Ian Brenson

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fit To Be Fryed: Frye V. United States And The Admissibility Of Novel Scientific Evidence, John D. Borders Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Helping Jurors To Make Sense Of Expert Testimony, David Aaronson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Today's jurors frequently sit in trials where confusing and conflicting expert testimony is likely to be presented by sophisticated and highly trained individuals, using terminology unfamiliar to the average person. Proposals have been made and trial courts are experimenting with various procedures—none thoroughly evaluated— to improve jurors’ ability to cope with such testimony. My purpose here is to more clearly identify the problem and to review some of the reform proposals.

Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Illinois' Latest Version Of The Defense Of Voluntary Intoxication: Is It Wise? Is It Constitutional?, 39 Depaul L. Rev. 15 (1989), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Evidence Protected By Noerr-Pennington, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Evidence, Charles E. Friend

University of Richmond Law Review

The past year has brought a number of cases which have supplemented and clarified existing Virginia law. The Court of Appeals of Virginia has produced many of these decisions in the exercise of its initial appellate jurisdiction, but the docket of the Supreme Court of Virginia has also generated some important holdings in the evidence area.

Campbell V. Greer: Impeaching Witnesses With Prior Conviction Evidence In A Civil Trial

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Jones: Maryland's Flexible Present Sense Impression Exception, Judith Lynn Schlossberg

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Defending Miranda, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.