Evidence Commons^™

Writings On The Wall: The Need For An Authorship-Centric Approach To The Authentication Of Social-Networking Evidence, Ira P. Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

People are stupid when it comes to their online postings. The recent spate of social-networking websites has shown that people place shocking amounts of personal information online. Unlike more traditional modes of communication, the unique nature of these websites allows users to hide behind a veil of anonymity. But while social-networking sites may carry significant social benefits, they also leave users—and their personal information—vulnerable to hacking and other forms of abuse. This vulnerability is playing out in courtrooms across the country and will only increase as social-networking use continues to proliferate. This Article addresses the evidentiary hurdle of authenticating social-networking …

Spoliation Of Electronic Evidence: Sanctions Versus Advocacy, Charles W. Adams

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Article proposes that courts should refrain from imposing adverse inference jury instructions as sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. This proposal bears some similarity to the approach taken twenty years ago by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, which constrained courts' ability to sanction. Instead of imposing an adverse jury instruction as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, courts should allow evidence of spoliation to be admitted at trial if a reasonable jury could find that spoliation had occurred and if the spoliation was relevant to a material issue. If a court allows the introduction of evidence of spoliation …

Smooth Courtroom Moves: The "Exhibit Dance", Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Current court rules often require parties to identify proposed exhibits in advance of trial, as well as objections to the other side’s evidence, so the judge can make pretrial rulings on admissibility issues (e.g., FRCP 26). This practice saves precious trial time, minimizes the time that jurors are banished during sidebar discussions between judge and counsel, eliminates in large measure surprises about how the evidence will shape up at trial, and arguably promotes settlement. It also allows the exhibits to be pre-marked for identification, further streamlining the trial process.

Nonetheless, trial lawyers still need to be able to lay hands …

An Overview Of Small Scale Digital Forensics, Susan Fowler

Senior Honors Theses and Projects

No abstract provided.

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

Spare The Rod, Spoil The Litigator? The Varying Degrees Of Culpability Required For An Adverse Inference Sanction Regarding Spoliation Of Electronic Discovery, Lauren R. Nichols

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Affective Blindness Of Evidence Law, Teneille R. Brown

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Evidentiary rules and practices reveal a folk psychological view of emotion, placing it at odds with reason. Specifically, many substantive and procedural rules of evidence explicitly require jurors to turn off their emotions in favor of rational, so-called “top-down,” executive thinking. In order to make the point that this dichotomy between emotion and reason is simultaneously reflected in our evidence law and also empirically wrong, I will address how emotion is treated in (a) the use of limiting instructions, (b) the exclusion of prejudicial evidence, (c) credibility assessments, (d) sentencing and damages instructions, (e) instructions related to the “heat of …

Narrative Implications Of Evidentiary Rules, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

Advocates are increasingly conscious of courtroom disputes as forms of story-battles, in which the parties present competing narratives. But the rules of evidence -- determining which facts can be incorporated into the presentation of the parties' stories -- can also often best be understood from a narrative point of view. This paper examines narrative features underlying evidentiary rules dealing with leading questions, "speaking objections," and hearsay.

Spoliation Of Electronic Evidence: Sanctions Versus Advocacy, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

This Article proposes that courts should refrain from imposing adverse inference jury instructions as sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. This proposal bears some similarity to the approach taken twenty years ago by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, which constrained courts' ability to sanction. Instead of imposing an adverse jury instruction as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, courts should allow evidence of spoliation to be admitted at trial if a reasonable jury could find that spoliation had occurred and if the spoliation was relevant to a material issue. If a court allows the introduction of evidence of spoliation …

Good Medicine/Bad Medicine And The Law Of Evidence: Is There A Role For Proof Of Character, Propensity, Or Prior Bad Conduct In Medical Negligence Litigation?, 63 S.C. L. Rev. 367 (2011), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Discourse On The Aba's Criminal Justice Standards: Prosecution And Defense Functions: The Physical Evidence Dilemma: Does Aba Standard 4-4.6 Offer Appropriate Guidance?, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

Since 1966, when criminal defense lawyer Richard Ryder was disciplined for retaining physical evidence that connected his client to a bank robbery, lawyers and courts have struggled with the ethical dilemma of how defense lawyers should deal with physical evidence that potentially incriminates one of their clients. When a lawyer takes possession of an evidentiary item, must she always turn it over to the authorities, as required by most courts that have addressed this dilemma? Or, can defense counsel return the evidence to the source from whom counsel received it as recommended by Standard 4-4.6 of the ABA Criminal Justice …

The Admissibility Of Eyewitness-Identification Expert Testimony In Oklahoma, Sean S. Hunt

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sky Is Not Falling: How The Anticlimactic Application Of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts To Oklahoma's Laboratory Report Procedures Allows Room For Improvement, Danae Vansickle Grace

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Real Rape, Too, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Voluntary Client Testimony As A Privilege Waiver: Is Ohio's Law Caught In A Time Warp, David B. Alden, Matthew P. Silverstein

Cleveland State Law Review

The question of whether Ohio should retain the waiver through voluntary testimony rule-assuming that is the current rule-is neither close nor difficult. The relevant statute dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century when Ohio enacted its first code of civil procedure, and if it in fact leads to a waiver, has been substantively unchanged in the intervening one hundred fifty plus years. The rule undermines the policies the attorney-client privilege was designed to further, and the policy on which the rule apparently was based-preventing perjured testimony-no longer has the primacy it did in the mid-nineteenth century and, in …

Introduction: Contains Cover, Table Of Contents, Letter From The Editor, And Masthead, Francis C. Oroszlan

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology is proud to present its second issue of the 2010–2011 academic year.

The Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Jonathan D. Frieden, Leigh M. Murray

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Following the December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, much has been written about the discovery of electronically-stored information.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 502: Has It Lived Up To Its Potential?, Paul W. Grimm, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, Matthew P. Kraeuter

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Nothing causes litigators greater anxiety than the possibility of doing, or failing to do, something during a civil case that waives attorney– client privilege or work-product protection. Attend any seminar, webcast, podcast, or other continuing legal education course dealing with the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) and you are sure to hear about this concern and how to mitigate it.

Four Years Later: How The 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules Have Reshaped The E-Discovery Landscape And Are Revitalizing The Civil Justice System, Bennett B. Borden, Monica Mccarroll, Brian C. Vick, Lauren M. Wheeling

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were enacted to address the potentially immense burden involved in the discovery of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), set in motion a process that is revitalizing the primary purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted nearly seventy years earlier: “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” One of the principal means through which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure achieve this purpose is by allowing for the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” The reasoning …