Evidence Commons^™

Opportunity Lost, Opportunity Found: A Proposal To Amend Maine's Rule Of Evidence 404 To Admit "Prior Acts" Evidence In Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Tina Heather Nadeau

Maine Law Review

In 2008, thirty-one people were the victims of homicide in the state of Maine. Even more startling: nineteen of these homicides stemmed from domestic violence, possibly the largest number of domestic-violence-related killings in the state's history. This means that nearly 70 percent of Maine's homicides in 2008 were the result of domestic violence. Amendments made in 2007 (and implemented in February 2008) to Maine's Criminal Code have criminalized particular instances of domestic violence as “enhanced” crimes of violence. This allows prosecutors to consider “prior acts” of domestic abuse when deciding how to charge a criminal defendant accused of a domestic-violence-related …

Racism, Juries, And Justice: Addressing Post-Verdict Juror Testimony Of Racial Prejudice During Deliberations, Andrew C. Helman

Maine Law Review

From the beginning, race played a role in the prosecution of Christopher McCowen for the rape and murder of well-known fashion writer Christa Worthington. To some, the trial was even a spectacle and treated as “one of the most spectacular homicide cases in [Massachusetts'] history.” It quickly became a “made-for-cable-news tale of the heiress fashion writer and her lowly Portuguese fisherman lover, illicit sex, and an out-of-wedlock child,” all set in a seaside village. McCowen, an African-American garbage man, was right in the middle of it; police and prosecutors did not believe his assertions that he had consensual sex with …

"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull

Maine Law Review

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to “confront witnesses against them.” Specifically, the Clause ensures a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses who testify against him by the unique medium, or “crucible,” of cross-examination. Although federal and state rules of evidence prohibiting hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar interests, whether or not admission of a piece of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a separate analysis than whether that same piece of evidence is admissible under a rule of evidence. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held …

The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr

Maine Law Review

On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …

State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon

Maine Law Review

Darrell Thurston and Suzanne Harmon were romantically involved on an intermittent basis for five years and had one child together. As a result of an altercation that took place at Harmon’s home in Sullivan, Maine, on September 27, 2007, between Thurston and Harmon, Thurston was charged with assault, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of crime or injury. The testimony during the trial illuminated the major factual differences between Thurston’s and Harmon’s accounts of the night the incident took place. Thurston requested a self defense jury instruction based on his version of what had happened, which the trial court ultimately denied. …

Findings Of Fact Vs. Conclusions Of Law: How The Law Court Complicated The Case Of State V. Connor, Christopher S. Boulos

Maine Law Review

In State v. Connor, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, upheld a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Although the evidence presented in the suppression hearing seemed adequate to support the denial of the motion, the trial judge failed to clearly state his conclusions of law when denying the motion. However, the Law Court mistook the ambiguous conclusions of law as ambiguous findings of fact. Because the findings of fact were ambiguous in the court’s view, the majority and dissenting opinions spent the bulk of their energies discussing how the court should review …

Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes

Maine Law Review

In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …

Discharging State V. Hurd: Maine Rule Of Evidence 606(B) Should Not Be Used To Prevent A Jury From Fully Reporting Its Verdict, William I. Olver

Maine Law Review

In State v. Hurd, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, was asked to decide if a jury may correct a mistake in the reporting of its verdict, mere moments after leaving the courtroom, once the court had declared that the jury was “discharged.” Ryan Hurd was charged with aggravated OUI, among other things, as a result of a crash involving Hurd’s car, which tragically resulted in one person losing his life. During the trial, because there was a dispute regarding whether Hurd was driving the car himself or asked a second person to drive the car, …

The Prolonged Arm Of The Law: Fourth Amendment Principles, The Maynard Decision, And The Need For A New Warrant For Electronic Tracking, R. Reeve Wood Iii

Maine Law Review

This article examines the decision in United States v. Maynard as well as the simultaneous emergence of a vocal set of magistrate judges advocating for Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location information. It argues that, even if the Maynard rationale is widely adopted and the use of tracking devices is found to be a search, the Fourth Amendment principles of specificity and limited discretion on the part of government officers mean that the warrant frameworks currently in use will not provide adequate protection from the threat of government officers obtaining information for which they have not demonstrated a need. …

Trial By Numbers, Rebecca K. Helm, Valerie P. Hans, Valerie F. Reyna

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

Legal cases often require jurors to use numerical information. They may need to evaluate the meaning of specific numbers, such as the probability of match between a suspect and a DNA sample, or they may need to arrive at a sound numerical judgment, such as a money damage award. Thus, it is important to know how jurors understand numerical information, and what steps can be taken to increase juror comprehension and appropriate application of numerical evidence. In this Article, we examine two types of juror decisions involving numbers--decisions in which jurors must convert numbers into meaning (such as by understanding …

Cross-Examination, College Sexual-Assault Adjudications, And The Opportunity For Tuning Up The "Greatest Legal Engine Ever Invented", H. Hunter Bruton

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

With its reputation as the "greatest legal engine ever invented" cross-examination rarely receives critical evaluation. This Article seeks to narrow that academic gap and offer pragmatic advice to policymakers and judges considering the in-the-trenches issues of cross-examination. Despite a great body of empirical and interdisciplinary work on cross-examination, legal scholarship often relegates discussion of cross-examination's benefits and costs to an errant footnote or a short paragraph. But cross-examination's efficacy should not be an afterthought or aside to doctrinal exegesis. Answers to the hardest questions about the presence, scope, and format of cross-examination rely on assumptions about the benefits and costs …

Avoid These Eleven Common Evidentiary Mistakes, John E. Rumel

Articles

No abstract provided.

Juror Assessment Of Certainty About Firearms Identification Evidence, Sarah L. Cooper, Paraic Scanlon

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—When The Pillow Talks: Arkansas's Rape Shield Statute Bars Dna Evidence Excluding The Defendant As The Source Of Semen. Thacker V. State, 2015 Ark. 406, 474 S.W.3d 65., Lacon Marie Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Local Rules Revolution In Criminal Discovery, Daniel S. Mcconkie

Cardozo Law Review

Over the last few decades, federal district court judges throughout the country have used local rules to greatly expand pretrial criminal disclosure obligations, especially for prosecutors. These local criminal discovery rules both incentivize prosecutors to act as ministers of justice and empower judges to manage prosecutorial disclosures. This quiet revolution is now well underway, and the time has come to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to bring these innovations to all the districts.

Commentators have long recognized that neither Supreme Court precedent nor the Federal Rules effectively require prosecutors to provide the defense with enough discovery to properly …

Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Exorcising The Clergy Privilege, Christine P. Bartholomew

Journal Articles

This Article debunks the empirical assumption behind the clergy privilege, the evidentiary rule shielding confidential communications with clergy. For over a century, scholars and the judiciary have assumed generous protection is essential to foster and encourage spiritual relationships. Accepting this premise, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted virtually absolute privilege statutes. To test this assumption, this Article distills data from over 700 decisions — making it the first scholarship to analyze state clergy privilege jurisprudence exhaustively. This review finds a privilege in decline: courts have lost faith in the privilege. More surprisingly, though, so have clergy. …

"I'Ve Got My Mind Made Up": How Judicial Teleology In Cases Involving Biologically Based Evidence Violates Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Michael L. Perlin

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article critiques the teleological reasoning employed by judges in cases involving biologically-based evidence, particularly in mental disability law. It argues that judges often prioritize pre-determined outcomes over evidence, leading to decisions that neglect valid scientific data and violate the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence.

The Dangers Of E-Discovery And The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Ryan J. Reeves

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

The Moment Of Truth For Fmri: Will Deception Detection Pass Admissibility Hurdles In Oklahoma?, Julie Elizabeth Myers

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.