Evidence Commons^™

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past decade and a half, a great deal of attention has rightfully been given to the issue of wrongful convictions. In 2003, Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck published Actual Innocence, an eyeopening treatise on the reality of wrongful convictions in the United States. In the years since, more than 1400 innocent persons have been exonerated, and a very diverse research community of attorneys, academics, social scientists, and activists has developed in response to the realization offlaws in our criminal justice system. In 2012, Brandon Garrett's Convicting the Innocent quantitatively evaluated the first 250 DNA exonerations and …

The Texas Rules Of Evidence: Something Old, Something New, And Something Changed, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

On November 19, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an Order amending all of the Texas Rules of Evidence, effective April 1, 2015. In its Order, the Court explained that the amendments were part of an effort to “restyle” the Rules, to make them as consistent as possible with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to make them easier to understand.

The 2015 amendments to the Texas Rules of Evidence are a commendable step toward making the Rules more user-friendly. It is clear to even the casual reader that the reformatting of the Rules, through the use of consistent and …

Negotiator's Nook: The Ins And Outs Of Effective Negotiation, David Spratt

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

'In The Interests Of Justice' As The New Test To Exclude Relevant Evidence In Singapore: Anb V Anc [2014] Sghc 172; Wan Lai Ting V Kea Kah Kim [2014] Sghc 180, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, …

Re-Assessing The Evidentiary Regime Of The International Court Of Justice: A Case For Codifying Its Discretion To Exclude Evidence, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Like many international tribunals, the International Court of Justice subscribes heavily to the principle of free admissibility of evidence. Neither its statute nor rules impose substantive restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, whether by way of exclusionary rules or an exclusionary discretion. Instead, the court’s practice has been to focus on evaluating and weighing the evidence after it has been admitted. There are certainly features of the ICJ that sets it apart from domestic courts and arguably justify such an approach: the ICJ is for settling disputes between sovereign states; it does not use a typical fact-finding system; its rules …

The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Michael L. Orenstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

Newsroom: Horwitz On The Role Of Grand Juries, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, John E. Hall Jr., W. Scott Henwood, Jacque Smith Clarke

Mercer Law Review

This year represents the first full survey period' in which the "new" Georgia Evidence Code, title 24 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), takes effect. These new rules took effect on January 1, 2013. The rules conform in large part to the Federal Rules of Evidence and have continued to change the face of evidence law in Georgia. Appellate cases are now providing guidance and direction on the courts' interpretation of the rules, and these cases affect litigants' strategies. This Survey highlights cases decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court between June 1, …

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the Wigmore treatise was the dominant force in organizing, setting out, and explaining the American law of evidence. Since then, the first two of those roles have been taken over in large part by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules). And the third has been performed most notably by the Weinstein treatise. Judge Jack Weinstein was present at the creation of the Rules and before. Though he first made his name in Civil Procedure, while still a young man he joined two of the stalwarts of evidence law, Edmund Morgan and …

The Court As Gatekeeper: Preventing Unreliable Pretrial Ediscovery From Jeopardizing A Reliable Fact-Finding Process, Daniel K. Gelb

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Snap And Destroy: Preservation Issues For Ephemeral Communications, Ryan G. Ganzenmuller

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.