Evidence Commons^™

Foreword To The Symposium, The Death Of Eyewitness Testimony And The Rise Of Machine, Jane Campbell Moriarty, Erin Mccluan

Duquesne Law Review

Artificial intelligence, machine evidence, and complex technical evidence are replacing human-skill-based evidence in the courtroom. This may be an improvement on mistaken eyewitness identification and unreliable forensic science evidence, which are both causes of wrongful convictions. Thus, the move toward more machine- based evidence, such as DNA, biometric identification, cell service location information, neuroimaging, and other specialties may provide better evidence. But with such evidence comes different problems, including concerns about proper cross-examination and confrontation, reliability, inscrutability, human bias, constitutional concerns, and both philosophic and ethical questions.

What Machines Can Teach Us About "Confrontation", Andrea Roth

Duquesne Law Review

In this short Article, I argue that treating non-human conveyances of information-and other forms of evidence that cannot be cross-examined-as beyond the Confrontation Clause is unsatisfactory as a matter of text, history, logic, and principle. Instead, all of these clues lead to one conclusion: the right of confrontation is a right not only to physical presence of certain human witnesses to facilitate demeanor review and questioning, but to a meaningful opportunity to scrutinize the government's proof, whatever its form.⁸ That right would include out-of-court discovery of critical contextual information about the evidence, whether or not exculpatory, and a …

The Inscrutability Problem: From First-Generation Forensic Science To Neuroimaging Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Duquesne Law Review

Expert testimony continues to turn away from human-based skills to embrace machine-based evidence. Technology is used to identify and locate individuals, unlock encrypted devices, and even to evaluate criminal responsibility. Perhaps this is a positive change. The shortcomings of first-generation forensic identification specialties are substantial and include the inscrutability of its subjective comparisons. As such, this newer generation of evidence may well be an improvement. Yet the inscrutability problem adopts many forms. Machine-based evidence relies on hardware, software, algorithms, statistics, and engineering to reach results-ones created and interpreted by humans subject to bias and cognitive error; results the justice system …

Technology - Revealing Or Framing The Truth? A Jurisprudential Debate, Dana Neacsu

Duquesne Law Review

Technology is so much more than a prosthetic. But how much more? And what else is it? In the legal realm, its role is not yet clear. Such a lack of elucidation becomes problematic, especially when technology has the ability to convert assumptions into facts, and it takes on a truth-making, rather than a mere truth-revealing mission. This Article argues that it is problematic to enable technology to stand in for reflective thinking, and calls attention to the fact that evidentiary rules enable technology to decide what can be proven, ergo what truth is.

Considering "Machine Testimony": The Impact Of Facial Recognition Software On Eyewitness Identifications, Valena Beety

Duquesne Law Review

Andrea Roth's seminal work in Machine Testimony and Trial by Machine presented a problem that is now upon us: addressing biased algorithms and the rampant reliance on technology by prosecutors and law enforcement.¹ That reliance, however, is no longer unquestioning. Roth's work came at a crucial moment in time, when other articles were embracing the apparent impartiality of technology and algorithms for use in the criminal legal system. Her scholarship steered us away from that blind acceptance and dove deep, not only questioning technology itself, but also how to frame those questions of technology in the courtroom.

Biometrics And An Ai Bill Of Rights, Margaret Hu

Duquesne Law Review

This Article contends that an informed discussion on an Al Bill of Rights requires grappling with biometric data collection and its integration into emerging Al systems. Biometric Al systems serve a wide range of governmental purposes, including policing, border security and immigration enforcement, and biometric cyberintelligence and biometric-enabled warfare. These systems are increasingly categorized as "high-risk" when deployed in ways that may impact fundamental constitutional rights and human rights. There is growing recognition that high-risk biometric AI systems, such as facial recognition identification, can pose unprecedented challenges to criminal procedure rights. This Article concludes that a failure to recognize these …

Ending Manner-Of-Death Testimony And Other Opinion Determinations Of Crime, Keith A. Findley, Dean A. Strang

Duquesne Law Review

In January 2011, Ellen Greenberg's fianc6 and her apartment building manager broke down her apartment door after she failed repeatedly to respond to attempts to contact her.¹ They found herd ead in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor, the victim of twenty stab wounds to her chest, torso, head, and neck, including stab wounds to the back of her head and to her body through her clothes. They found a half-eaten fruit salad on the kitchen counter along with an overturned knife block. By all appearances, Greenberg was the victim of a grisly murder, and the medical …

On-Screen V. In Person: How A Tech-Savvy World Is Impacting Jurors' Perceptions Of Witnesses, Michael T. Deer

Duquesne Law Review

When speaking to a friend or loved one via video chat, one receives the thrill of seeing that person in real time-without a faceto- face encounter. Video chatting is a popular mechanism in the twenty-first century, as the technology comes in various forms and lives at our fingertips.¹ Whether a family is video chatting with an overseas servicemember during a holiday, a person is attending an online class or work meeting, or someone is seeing his or her doctor by way of a virtual appointment, our notion of "face time" has evolved significantly.² In fact, Merriam-Webster now defines …

Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib

American University Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) rest on an unacceptably shaky constitutional foundation. Unlike other regimes of federal rulemaking—for Civil Procedure, for Criminal Procedure, and for Appellate Procedure—the FRE rulemaking process contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act is both formally and functionally defective because Congress enacted the FRE as a statute first but purports to permit the Supreme Court to revise, repeal, and amend those laws over time, operating as a kind of supercharged administrative agency with the authority to countermand congressional statutes. Formally, this system violates the constitutionally-delineated separation of powers as announced in Chadha, Clinton, and the non-delegation …

Liberty And Justice For All?: A Pathfinder On The Use Of Lyrics As Evidence In Civil And Criminal Trial, Stephanie Washington

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Coerced Testimony Of A Witness, As Opposed To The Fabrication Of Evidence, Should Not Be Used As A Basis To Satisfy A § 1983 Claim For Alleged Due Process Violations In An Underlying Criminal Matter, 55 Uic L. Rev. 40 (2022), Jonathan Federman, Kyle Fleck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Duty To Impair: Failure To Adopt The Federal Rules Of Evidence Allows The Va To Rely On Incompetent Examiners And Inadequate Medical Examinations, 90 Umkc L. Rev. 511 (2022), Yelena Duterte

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

The Prosecutor In The Mirror: Conviction Integrity Units And Brady Claims, Lissa Griffin, Daisy Mason

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor has a due process obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence that is material to guilt or punishment. The failure to fulfill this duty is particularly insidious because it bears directly on both whether an innocent defendant may have been convicted as well as on whether the adjudicatory process was fair. The failure to disclose exculpatory evidence has been characterized as “epidemic” and has been documented to have made a major, outsized contribution in cases that resulted in exonerations. It is not surprising, then, that conviction integrity units in prosecutor’s offices …

Put Down The Phone! The Standard For Witness Interviews Is In-Person, Face-To-Face, One-On-One, Sean O'Brien, Quinn O'Brien, Dana Cook

Faculty Works

Professor and capital defense attorney Sean O’Brien, private investigator Quinn O’Brien, and mitigation specialist Dana Cook team up in this article to explain why the standard for competent defense investigation requires face-to-face, one-on-one, culturally competent client and witness interviews, and why short cuts to investigation, such as telephone calls or remote video links, are counter-productive, prone to failure, and constitute substandard work. Although the primary focus of this article is on standards that apply to capital mitigation work, the problems created by remote witness interviews are not unique to death penalty work; there are persuasive arguments and authority that the …

State V. Jones, 242 A.3d 47 (R.I. 2020)., Elizabeth Gravelle

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Joplin V. Cassin, 252 A.3d 271 (R.I. 2021), Julyssa Tavares

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rap Reform: Why Rhode Island Should Exclude Police Detectives And Gang Experts From Interpreting A Criminal Defendant’S Ambiguous Rap Lyrics, Chad O. Stroum

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

2021 Surveys Of Rhode Island Law

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Smith, 243 A.3d 1045 (R.I. 2021), Katriina Rose Juntunen

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.