Evidence Commons^™

The Supreme Court And The Press: Freedom Or Privilege?, Sandra Bradley

Akron Law Review

This comment will examine the Supreme Court's spring, 1978 decisions as they affected first amendment rights, and will assess their impact upon the press. Particular emphasis will be placed on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily as it affects first amendment, as well as fourth amendment, protections.

Motor Vehicles; Driving While Intoxicated; Section 4511.19; Implied Consent; Aurora V. Kepley, Amie Bruggeman

Akron Law Review

With the constant problem of accidents caused by drinking drivers and the fairly reliable results of breathalyzer tests established, judicial decisions have upheld the statutory scheme providing for its use through an era when rights of an accused have been greatly expanded. It has been held that the breathalyzer test results are not testimonial but physical evidence and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, the accused has no constitutional right to refuse to take the test, and the prosecutor may comment at the trial on his refusal relying on its' probative value as to whether …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph, Edward P. Mazak

Akron Law Review

In some joint criminal trials the right of one defendant to refrain from self incrimination may come into conflict with the right of another defendant to confront the witnesses against him. The problem arises when one defendant refuses to testify at trial after having made a voluntary, out of court statement which tends to implicate a second defendant. The rules of evidence allow the statement to be introduced at trial only against the party making it; its use against the implicated defendant is excluded as hearsay.' The rules also provide for the court to instruct the jury on the limited …

The Use Of Prior Inconsistent Statements Of Opinion To Impeach: Ohio's Position, Richard Milligan

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine prior inconsistent statements of opinion and point out why their exclusion, when offered to impeach, is improper. Ohio's three leading cases on this point will serve to exemplify the improper characterization and exclusion of these statements.

Presumptions And Modal Logic: A Hohfeldian Approach, John P. Finan

Akron Law Review

The difficulty of distinguishing between an inference and a presumption, a difficulty that bedevils tort and evidence teachers, (see Appendix I) among others, may be dispelled by a study of the deontic nature of permissible inferences and presumptions. Using scholastic terminology, an inference is a function of the intellect, not the will. Therefore, deontic notions of permission and duty seem foreign to inference. However, deontic notions are legitimate, because the law, in assigning a fact finding function to judge and jury, uses deontic notions in assigning fact finding competence. Thus, the statement that an inference is not permissible means that …

The Courtroom Status Of The Polygraph, John A. Turlik

Akron Law Review

This comment will inform the reader of the status and various uses of the polygraph available to the criminal attorney, with an emphasis on Ohio law.

The Probative Value Of Testimony From The Hypnotically Refreshed Recollection, Kevin L. Pelanda

Akron Law Review

"The experience of the last three centuries of judicial trials has demonstrated that in disputed issues one cannot depend upon the mere assertion of anybody, however plausible, without scrutiny into its basis." The recent increase in the use of hypnotic memory enhancement on the victims and witnesses of crimes, as well as on defendants' and plaintiffs' witnesses, necessitates an in-depth examination of the reliability of hypnosis as a basis for testimony or statements of persons who are speaking from a hypno-enhanced recollection. Such an examination of hypnosis reveals that hypnotically enhanced memories are likely to be fraught with fantasized and …

Polygraph Admission Through Compulsory Process, Timothy J. Walsh

Akron Law Review

Polygraph evidence is included within the broad category of expert testimony, yet it is treated quite differently from other forms of expert testimony. If admissible at all for the defense, polygraph evidence almost always requires the stipulation of the prosecution for it to be admitted into court. Such a requirement vests solely, within the hands of a prosecutor, the ability to eliminate that proof which may be necessary for the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions a defendant cannot even place his faith in the sympathy of a prosecutor. Instead, a rule bars him from proving …

Hypnosis In Our Legal System: The Status Of Its Acceptance In The Trial Setting, Joel R. Hlavaty

Akron Law Review

Hypnosis is a method of therapy which has been utilized by society for quite some time. Recently, it has gained popularity as a new device to be used in the trial setting. Although it is a legitimate method of therapy in the medical and psychological professions, in the hands of attorneys and the legal system it takes on a whole new life. This new life is plagued with questions of admissibility, reliability and suggestibility. This comment will examine these questions and the use of hypnosis in the various stages of trial. This paper will show that some courts hold such …

Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Voice Spectrography, Linda C. Ashar

Akron Law Review

In State v Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed for the first time the issue of admissibility of voice analysis as identification evidence. The court ruled that expert testimony and exhibits based on voice spectrography analysis are admissible if they are relevant and will assist the trier of fact. Williams also pronounces how Ohio courts should evaluate the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Coercive Conduct And Evidentiary Hearings; Atr Wire And Cable Co. V. Nlrb, Patricia A. Mcintyre

Akron Law Review

Traditionally, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has closely adhered to this strict standard.' It has done so in compliance with one of the foremost policies of the Act - the alleviation of labor unrest by expediently certifying bargaining units. ATR Wire and Cable Co. v. NLRB, "I however, represents the current willingness of the Sixth Circuit to de-emphasize the importance of expediently certifying bargaining representatives. First, the circuit will not hesitate to remand a case with direction to the NLRB to conduct an evidentiary hearing when it determines that the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendation to certify …

"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins

Akron Law Review

On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 804: Will The Real Predecessor-In-Interest Please Stand Up, Dennis J. Turner

Akron Law Review

As any judge, lawyer or law student can attest, the rule against hearsay with its plethora of exceptions is probably the most vexing of all the rules of evidence. When the Supreme Court's Proposed Rules of Evidence were first published, it was fairly apparent, with respect to the specific rules governing hearsay, that the Court had intended to remove some of the sting from a few of the more annoying aspects of the rule against hearsay.' In fact, the changes proposed by the Court arguably constituted a first step toward eliminating the rule entirely. The proposed hearsay rules (Federal Rules …

The Changing Face Of The Rule Against Hearsay In English Law, R. A. Clark

Akron Law Review

The rule against hearsay has always been surrounded by an aura of mystery and has been treated with excessive reverence by many English judges. Traditionally the English courts have been reluctant to allow any development in the exceptions to this exclusionary rule, regarding hearsay evidence as being so dangerous that even where it appears to be of a high probative calibre it should be excluded at all costs. But recent developments, both statutory and common law, have demonstrated a much more relaxed approach to this rule. In civil cases the hearsay rule has been contained in statutory form for some …

Response Of John Kulewicz To Professor Shanker, John J. Kulewicz

Akron Law Review

A glaring error in Professor Shanker's recent article proves the value of the parol evidence rule at least as effectively as the balance of his scholarly contribution to this journal. In reviewing the arguments of counsel in the Marion PCA v. Cochran case,' Professor Shanker claims that the Court "was led astray by the lawyers" and that" [m]isleading from the [l]awyers" caused the Court to undertake its analysis of the Statute of Frauds.2 He stakes this claim on his apparent belief that counsel did not ask the Court to apply the parol evidence rule to the facts of the case. …

Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora

Akron Law Review

Wiggins v. State presented two unique issues: (1) whether it was proper to authorize courtroom security personnel to use prophylactic apparel while escorting a defendant merely suspected of having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and (2) the extent to which this handling procedure impacted the jury.

This Note will analyze the Wiggins decision, emphasizing the court's reasoning as it pertains to the following: (1) the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial for defendants either having or being suspected of having AIDS; (2) the permissible exercise of discretion by the trial judge in authorizing precautions during the course of the …

Military Rules Of Evidence: Adoption Or Abrogation Of The Common Law?, Richard H. Mills

Akron Law Review

Posit: What role should the common law of evidence play in a military judge's decisions under the present rules of evidence? My conclusion is that the answer to this question is of bedrock importance to military justice.

Yet despite these differences, an understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the common law precedents from which they evolved is imperative if the majority of the military rules is to be properly employed.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 608(B): A Proposed Revision, Janeen Kerper, Bruce E. Macdonald

Akron Law Review

It is the thesis of this article that under the federal rules there are basically only two limitations on the use of extrinsic evidence to attack the credibility of a witness.

First, the basic rules of relevance and considerations of judicial efficiency give the judge discretion to exclude evidence of irrelevant or "collateral" matters under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 403. Second, Rule 608(b) limits the use of extrinsic evidence of specific acts tending to show that the witness has the character of a liar or a truthteller. The first of these limitations is discretionary while the second is …

Evidentiary Use Of Prior Acquittals: When Analysis Exceeds Reality, Paul Harper

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this note is to assess the basis and propriety of that decision and to highlight some potential problems with the Court's conclusion. Additionally, this casenote will attempt to envision how this holding may affect future prosecutions.

Finally it will offer an alternative model which may more adequately address the tension between the government's legitimate prosecutorial interests and the defendant's interest in finality of judgment.

State V. Jenks Fails To Clarify Appellate Standards Of Evidence Review In Ohio, Kevin L. Leffel

Akron Law Review

The analysis that follows focuses on two points. First, many reviewing courts in Ohio have failed to discern between reversing a conviction because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversing because the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. The concepts and associated standards of review are separate and distinct. Jenks failed to clarify the distinction and may actually add to the confusion. Second, the elimination of the circumstantial evidence rule has implications concerning the definition of reasonable doubt in Ohio.