Evidence Commons^™

Modern Evidence And The Expert Witness, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Fact Investigation From Hypothesis To Proof, Sarah Betsy Fuller

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Bibbs V. Block: Standard Of Causation And Burden Of Proof In An Individual Disparate Treatment Action Under Title Vii

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

I Cannot Tell A Lie: The Standard For New Trial In False Testimony Cases, Daniel Wolf

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the question of what standard should be used for granting a new trial when a defendant's conviction is alleged to have been based, at least in part, on false testimony. Part I demonstrates the failure of the existing standards to strike a satisfactory balance between defendants' rights and the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Part II argues that motions for retrial based upon false testimony should be governed by a standard drawn not only from newly discovered evidence cases generally, but also from cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Part III suggests that the proper test …

Confidence In Probability: Burdens Of Persuasion In A World Of Imperfect Knowledge, Neil B. Cohen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Statistics In The Courtroom: Building On Rubinfeld, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

As the use of statistics in litigation has burgeoned and as more complicated statistical techniques have entered the courtroom, concern for the way courts use statistics has mounted and efforts to instruct lawyers and judges on the wise use of statistics have begun. Professor Rubinfeld's paper is a contribution toward this end. Two ideas at the core of this paper are particularly important if we are to develop a more satisfactory approach to the use of statistics in the courtroom. The first is Professor Rubinfeld's caution against the talismanic use of the .05 level of significances as a test of …

The Admissibility Of Prior Silence To Impeach The Testimony Of Criminal Defendants, Rex A. Sharp

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note focuses on whether a defendant who was called as a witness at the prior, severed trial of a codefendant and refused to testify by invoking the fifth amendment can subsequently be impeached by this silence at his own trial. In addition to the obvious implications this issue has for severed criminal trials, the factors considered when deciding whether impeachment by silence should be allowed generally are in sharpest focus in this factual setting. Thus, the analysis of the constitutional and evidentiary questions this Note enlists to argue that impeachment by silence in this context is permissible applies as …

Comity And Tragedy: The Case Of Rule 407, Marcia L. Finkelstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note advocates that when a Federal Rule of Evidence conflicts with a state rule, a court should examine closely the purpose of the rules in an effort to balance the competing policies of comity and procedural uniformity. Part II of this Note provides a general background on legislative and court decisions concerning federal-state conflicts. Part II also illustrates the congressional and judicial inclination to protect state substantive law. Part III dis-cusses the conflict between the Maine Rule and Federal Rule 407. Part IV suggests an approach to the general conflict between state and federal rules and applies that approach …

Closing The "Open Fields" Question: Oliver V. United States, Brian K. Jorgensen

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Symposium Proceedings, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Unmasking The Criminal: A Proposal To Prevent The Accessibility Of False Identification, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 789 (1985), Gerard Ring

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Suzanne Jett

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Burger Court And Prosecutorial Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Professor Gershman critically examines a series of recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with prosecutorial misconduct. In each case, the Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction.

There are a broad range of issues involved; from suppression of evidence to trial misconduct. As a former prosecutor in New York City, the author is forced to conclude that, "Prosecutorial misconduct occurs because it works and because sanctions for misbehavior are virtually nonexistent."

Casenotes: Evidence — Use Of Prior Bad Acts Not Resulting In Conviction Are Permissible For Impeachment Purposes If Probative Of Veracity And Readily Provable. State V. Cox, 298 Md. 173, 468 A.2d 319 (1983), John Jude Hathway

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Washington Search And Seizure Law, Justice Robert F. Utter

Seattle University Law Review

This Survey is designed to assist lawyers and judges who must argue and resolve search and seizure issues in Washington State. The Survey summarizes the controlling state and federal cases on search and seizure law and uses as an additional reference W. LAFAVE, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (1978). Washington courts are likely to analyze future search and seizure issues under both the fourth amendment and Washington Constitution article I, section 7. The difference in wording between the two provisions is substantial, suggesting different degrees or types of privacy protection. This Survey summarizes the predominant treatment …

Does A Criminal Defendant Have A Constitutional Right To Compel The Production Of Privileged Testimony Through Use Immunity, Louis M. Natali Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Dead Men Tell Tales: Thirty Times Three Years Of The Judicial Process After Hillmon, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The Missing Witness Inference - Quieting The Loud Voice From The Empty Chair, Robert H. Stier Jr.

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Polygraph And Deception Tests: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Editor's Preface, J. Edward Goff

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Federal Rules Of Evidence: A Decade Later - Introduction, Leonard Packel

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence In The States: A Ten-Year Perspective, L. Kinvin Wroth

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Need To Amend Federal Rule Of Evidence 404(B): The Threat To The Future Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The First Decade Under Article Vi Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Some Suggested Amendments To Fill Gaps And Cure Confusion, John R. Schmertz Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Testing The Reliability Of Coconspirators' Statements Admitted Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(2)(E): Putting The Claws Back In The Confrontation Clause, Daniel R. Rizzolo

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Review Of Findings Of Fact Based On Documentary Evidence: Is The Proposed Amendment To Rule 52(A) The Correct Solution, Kevin P. Robins

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, Margaret T. Burns

Michigan Journal of International Law

This note asserts that the Hague Convention is not the exclusive vehicle available to U.S. litigants for taking evidence abroad. It argues that in certain circumstances, U.S. courts should allow litigants to use the more liberal methods of the Federal Rules when seeking evidence from party litigants in other signatory nations.

Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court in Leon v. United States held that where law enforcement officials execute a search warrant issued in violation of the dictates of the fourth amendment but act in the "good faith," "objectively-reasonable" belief that the warrant was constitutionally valid, the fruits of the search should not (with a few exceptions) be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. On June 8, 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court, after calling for and receiving briefs and arguments on the same issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified, concluded, for reasons of …

Prior Inconsistent Statements As Substantive Evidence: Illinois Takes The Sting Out Of The Turncoat Witness, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 69 (1985), Mark D. Krauskopf

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.