Evidence Commons^™

The Truthsayer And The Court: Expert Testimony On Credibility, Michael W. Mullane

Maine Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to analyze the admissibility of expert testimony on credibility. State v. Woodburn serves as a lens to focus on the broader issues. The primary issue is an examination of expert testimony on credibility in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence and their progeny. The Rules of Evidence mandate admission or exclusion of expert testimony based on certain criteria. How are these criteria applied to expert testimony on credibility? How should they be applied? The surprising survivability of other criteria discarded by the Rules is also considered.

State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.

Maine Law Review

In State v. Pinkham, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that a police officer's stop of a motorist to inquire and advise about the motorist's improper-but not illegal-lane usage did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable seizures. The Pinkham decision is the first time that the Law Court has validated the stop of a moving vehicle in the absence of either a suspected violation of law or an imminent, ongoing threat to highway safety.
This Note considers whether the Law Court was correct in sustaining the police officer's stop of Ronald Pinkham. …

Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block

Maine Law Review

Police checkpoints or “roadblocks” have become an increasingly utilized law enforcement tool. At best, these checkpoints result in only a minor inconvenience to motorists. When abused, however, roadblocks have the potential for invidious invasions of privacy and personal freedom. Roadblocks are designed to deter, and to a lesser extent detect, criminal activity by stopping everyone—both the guilty and the law-abiding—for a brief inspection, thereby impinging to some degree on one's freedom of travel, privacy, and “right to be let alone.” Such “seizures” must be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment in order to survive constitutional challenge. The major difference between roadblocks …

Evidence, Arrest Circumstances, And Felony Cocaine Case Processing, Jacqueline G. Lee, Alexander Testa

Criminal Justice Faculty Publications and Presentations

Case evidence and situational arrest characteristics are widely speculated to influence courtroom actor decisions, yet such measures are infrequently included in research. Using new data on felony cocaine cases from an urban county in a Southern non-guideline state, this study examines how physical evidence and arrest circumstances affect three stages of case processing: initial charge type, charge reduction, and sentence length. The influence of evidence appeared strongest at the early stage when prosecutors chose the appropriate charge, though certain evidentiary and arrest measures continued to influence later decisions. Charge reductions were driven mostly by legal factors, and while guilt should …

State Intent Under International Law, Stephen Townley

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The question of legislative intent has long been a topic of intense scholarly focus in the United States. There has also been a recent uptick in discussion of executive branch intent with the filing of highprofile lawsuits predicated upon allegations of improper motives. However, there has been no corollary effort to unpack the concept of state intent at the international level, where it arises with respect to such varied questions as how to understand the scope of a state's consent, whether a state should be deemed to be negotiating in good faith, and whether a state has engaged in genocide. …

Reviving “Dead Letters”: Reimagining Federal Rule Of Evidence 410 As A Conditional Privilege, Peter G. Cornick

Vanderbilt Law Review

Though understudied relative to its fellow specialized relevance rules, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 protects a crucial element of the criminal justice system: plea negotiations. As written, the rule prevents the admission of evidence gathered during plea discussions, which helps assure criminal defendants that their candid discussions with prosecutors will not harm them in any future proceeding. But the Supreme Court has greatly weakened Rule 410, permitting broad waiver of the rule’s protections that run afoul of Congress’s purpose in creating the rule and its plain language. In light of these developments, the Note argues that Rule 410 should be …

Does Impeachment By Conviction Create Undue Prejudice? An Experiment And An Analysis, David Crump

Akron Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence, and rules in the States, allow for impeachment of the testimony of a witness by proof of the witness's criminal convictions. If the witness is the criminal defendant, however, there are restrictions on this kind of impeachment. The theory is that the jury is supposed to use the evidence solely for impeachment and not to support an inference that the defendant has a propensity toward committing crimes. But intuition tells us that the jury is likely to be influenced toward the prohibited inference of guilt of the crime charged rather than devaluation of credibility alone. …

Secret Conviction Programs, Meghan J. Ryan

Washington and Lee Law Review

Judges and juries across the country are convicting criminal defendants based on secret evidence. Although defendants have sought access to the details of this evidence—the results of computer programs and their underlying algorithms and source codes—judges have generally denied their requests. Instead, judges have prioritized the business interests of the for-profit companies that developed these “conviction programs” and which could lose market share if the secret algorithms and source codes on which the programs are based were exposed. This decision has jeopardized criminal defendants’ constitutional rights.

A Brief Essay Defending The Doctrine Of Objective Chances As A Valid Theory For Introducing Evidence Of An Accused’S Uncharged Misconduct, Edward J. Imwinkelried

New Mexico Law Review

Rule 404(b) has been described as the most controversial of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In many states, errors in the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence are the most common ground for reversal in criminal cases. Testimony about an accused’s other crimes can be so prejudicial that it is “often virtually decisive of the whole case.”

It would be a mistake to jettison the character evidence prohibition altogether. Evidence reformers should focus on improving the administration of the doctrine of objective chances rather than seeking its abolition.

Conference On Best Practices For Managing Daubert Questions

Fordham Law Review

Most of our faculty have meaningful disciplinary training outside of law including doctrinal training in multiple fields. Our faculty holds secondary appointments in many schools and departments on campus including biology, chemistry, economics, history, management, medicine, political science, psychiatry, radiology, and sociology, and we are home to a unique PhD program in law and economics, as well as a law and neuroscience program funded by the MacArthur Foundation. As a school, we therefore believe we are a logical host for you and your work, and we are thrilled that you are here with us. And speaking personally, I’m particularly pleased …

Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., Et Al V. Gervais, Et Al, 19-Ap-03 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2020), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court dismissed an appeal by Glacier Electric Cooperative [GEC] after it lost a jury trial over a breach of fiduciary duty to its members where $2.5 million in damages were awarded to the members.   The Court considered whether the evidence presented in trial supported the jury’s decision.   The Court used the Clear and Convincing evidence standard for compensatory and punitive damages. This is different from the change in GEC’s bylaws that only required appellants to have a Preponderance of evidence standard. The Court considered whether there was clear and convincing evidence that …

Limitations Of Washington Evidence Rule 413, Sarah Desautels

Washington Law Review

This Comment analyzes Washington State Evidence Rule 413 (ER 413). ER 413 renders evidence of the immigration status of criminal defendants, civil plaintiffs, and witnesses presumptively inadmissible at trial. The Washington State Supreme Court adopted ER413 in September 2018. It is the first of its kind in the nation. ER 413 provides a clear, uniform rule limiting the use of immigration evidence, an area where prior caselaw had created uncertainty. However, ER 413 falls short of its goal of promoting access to justice and protecting immigrants from jury bias without a supporting system that addresses (1) the dangers of implicit …

Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment grants “the accused” in “all criminal prosecutions” a right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” A particular problem occurs when there is a gap in time between the testimony that is offered, and the cross-examination of it, as where, pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption, evidence of a current witness’s prior statement is offered and for some intervening reason her current memory is impaired. Does this fatally affect the opportunity to “confront” the witness? The Supreme Court has, to date, left unclear the extent to which a memory-impaired witness can …

Deciding, ‘What Happened?’ When We Don’T Really Know: Finding Theoretical Grounding For Legitimate Judicial Fact-Finding, Nayha Acharya

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The crucial question for many legal disputes is “what happened,”? and there is often no easy answer. Fact-finding is an uncertain endeavor and risk of inaccuracy is inevitable. As such, I ask, on what basis can we accept the legitimacy of judicial fact-findings. I conclude that acceptable factual determinations depend on adherence to a legitimate process of fact-finding. Adopting Jürgen Habermas’s insights, I offer a theoretical grounding for the acceptability of judicial fact-finding. The theory holds that legal processes must embody respect for legal subjects as equal and autonomous agents. This necessitates two procedural features. First, fact-finding processes must be …

Revitalizing Fourth Amendment Protections: A True Totality Of The Circumstances Test In § 1983 Probable Cause Determinations, Ryan Sullivan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

The Article analyzes claims of police misconduct and false arrest, specifically addressing the issue of whether a police officer may ignore evidence of an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, when determining probable cause for an arrest. The inquiry most often arises in § 1983 civil claims for false arrest where the officer was aware of some evidence a crime had been committed, but was also aware of facts indicating the suspect had an affirmative defense to the crime observed. In extreme cases, the affirmative defense at issue is actually self-defense in response to the officer’s own unlawful conduct. As police …

California's Child Abuse Dependency Hearsay Exception In In Re I.C., Rachel Monas

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Blatantly Biased: Expanding Pena-Rodriguez To Cases Of Bias Against Sexual Orientation, Religion, And Sex, Tressa Bussio

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Why Law Of Evidence Supports The Verdict That The President Is Guilty, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

This post originally appeared on https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477186-why-law-of-evidence-supports-the-verdict-that-the-president-is-guilty

The Meaning Of A Misdemeanor In A Post-Ferguson World: Evaluating The Reliability Of Prior Conviction Evidence, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

Despite evidence that America’s low-level courts are overburdened, unreliable, and structurally biased, sentencing judges continue to uncritically consider a defendant’s criminal history in fashioning an appropriate punishment. Misdemeanor courts lack many of the procedural safeguards that are thought to ensure accuracy and reliability. As with other stages of the criminal justice system, people of color and poor people are disproportionately burdened with the inaccuracies of the misdemeanor system.

This Article examines instances in which sentencing courts have looked behind the mere fact of a prior conviction and assessed whether that prior conviction offered any meaningful insight for the subsequent sentence. …