Evidence Commons^™

Marijuana Dog Searches After United States V. Unrue, Fredric I. Lederer, Calvin M. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Psychiatrist's Testimony That State's Principal Witness's Psychological Condition Might Prompt Him To Distort Facts Was Not Admissible For Purposes Of Impeachment Of The Witness., Joseph H. Vives

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Vlandis V. Kline, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Georgia V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Dionisio, Lewis Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Evidence--Breathalyzer Test--Property Foundation For Admissibility Into Evidence

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Out-Of-State Witnesses And Compulsory Process: The Indigent Defendant's Rights

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Of An Extraneous Offense Offered To Rebut A Defensive Theory Urged By The Defendant Is Admissible Even Absent A Showing That The Defendant Was The Perpetrator Of The Extraneous Offense., Daniel J. Sheehan Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Civil Procedure--Class Actions--Order Dismissing Class Action that Leaves Plaintiff To Litigate a Small Monetary Claim Is Not a Final Appealable Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Plaintiff consumer, claiming to represent one and one-half million purchasers of defendants" products, filed a class action under section 4 of the Clayton Act, seeking treble damages, costs, and attorney's fees from defendants for alleged antitrust violations. Defendants successfully moved for a stay of proceedings pending the district court's determination of whether the case could be maintained as a class action.The court found the class unmanageable and, in accordance with Rule 23(c)(1) of the …

Workmen's Compensation: Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained By Deceitful Inducement

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Inventories Of The Contents Of Vehicles And The Exclusionary Rule

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pyramiding Of Presumptions And Inferences In Texas., Carlos S. Cadena

St. Mary's Law Journal

Anti-pyramid rules are based in the idea that a finding based on nothing more than mere speculation should be rejected. Despite the frequent invocation of these rules, many Texas courts fail to utilize them correctly. Though countless decisions lay down the general rule that a presumption cannot be based on another presumption and several state judiciaries pointing out the futility of basing an inference upon another inference, it is rare for the rules to be properly applied. This can be seen in Texas cases referencing and applying the rule. While a few cases justifiably apply the rule, in most cases, …

The Admissibility Of Gruesome Photographs In A Criminal Trial Is Based On Their Competency, Materiality, And Relevancy To The Issue On Trial And Are Admissible If A Verbal Description Of The Scene Of The Crime Would Be Admissible, Unless The Photographs Are Offered Solely To Inflame The Minds Of The Jury., Steven M. Lee

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Demise Of The Iron Curtain Statute, Denis James Lawler

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Almost every state permits persons convicted of a crime to testify in either their own or another person's behalf. Nonetheless, these states allow evidence of a person's prior criminal conviction to be used to impeach his credibility. The use of this method of impeachment in criminal trials has been the subject of substantial adverse criticism; yet, the practice remains widespread. This article first will discuss the problems that arise from the use of prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes in criminal trials and then will examine several proposals that would restrict the use of such evidence. Finally, the article will …

Pretrial Discovery- Use Of A Party's Own Deposition

University of Richmond Law Review

At common law depositions were admissible in evidence in ecclesiastical and equity courts but not in trials at law unless both parties consented. Today, the simple rules of the common law in this area have been entirely replaced by statutory law and Rules of Court. The recent Virginia case of King v. InternationalHarvester Co. is illustrative of the problems en- countered when courts have undertaken judicial interpretation of these codifications.

Miranda Warnings And The Harmless Error Doctrine: Comments On The Indiana Approach, Michael W. Fruehwald

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Written Evidence In Administrative Proceedings: A Plea For Less Talk, Roger J. Corber

University of Richmond Law Review

The notion that talk is the absence of thought is more poetry than analysis. Nevertheless, lawyers know that all talk is not thought and that there is at least a grain of truth in the poet's logic. Some of the same logic may mercifully be applied to the proceedings of ad- ministrative agencies to test whether all the talk in such proceedings is necessary to a rational result and sound implementation of public policy.

The Motion In Liminie In Criminal Trials: A Technique For The Pretrial Exclusion Of Prejudicial Evidence, Henry B. Rothblatt, David H. Leroy

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Easy Cases, Bad Law, And Burdens Of Proof, Roger B. Dworkin

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Contracts--Parol Evidence Rule--Admissibility Of Agency Not Appearing In Written Contract, Robert R. Skinner

West Virginia Law Review

How does the parol evidence rule apply to a written contract which on its face appears to have only two parties, but in which one of the parties wants to introduce extrinsic evidence that one of the signatories is an agent for another person? Part one of this note will discuss present case law and part two will show how that law compares with modem theories of the parol evidence rule.

Constitutional Law--Evidence--Use Of Miranda-Violative Confessions For Impeachment Purposes, William F. Dobbs Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Schneble V. Florida, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Richardson V. State: An Opportunity Missed, Jay F. Cook

Indiana Law Journal

Recent Developments in Indiana Law

Evidence--Introduction Of Insurance At A Trial, Craig R. Mckay

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prior Convictions As Impeaching Evidence

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence - Privileged Communications - Attorney-Client Privilege In Stockholders' Suit. Garner V. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), Cert. Denied, 39 U.S.L.W. 3411 (U.S. March 23, 1971), Michael D. Horlick

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence—Coconspirator Rule Allowing Admission Of Accomplice’S Declaration Held Not Violative Of Sixth Amendment Right Of Confrontation, Norman A. Leblanc Jr.

Buffalo Law Review

Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970).

Criminal Procedure--Self-Incrimination--Harmless Error--Application Of The Harmless Error Doctrine To Violations Of Miranda: The California Experience, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Using decisions of the appellate courts of California that have applied the federal harmless error rule to violations of Miranda v. Arizona and Escobedo v. Illinois, this Note will examine the logic and effects of the California application. However, the California experience can only be understood by first briefly describing the United States Supreme Court's decisions regarding harmless constitutional error and then showing the approaches taken by other states in their application of the harmless error rule to Miranda violations. Not only will this analysis put the California experience in its proper perspective, but it will also show the …

Evidence - Narcotics - Quantity Required For Conviction Of Possession. Robbs V. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 153, 176 S.E.2d 429 (1970), Douglas S. Wood

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.