Evidence Commons^™

Born This Way: How Neuroimaging Will Impact Jury Deliberations, Tanneika Minott

Duke Law & Technology Review

Advancements in technology have now made it possible for scientists to provide assessments of an individual’s mental state. Through neuroimaging, scientists can create visual images of the brain that depict whether an individual has a mental disorder or other brain defect. The importance of these advancements is particularly evident in the context of criminal law, where defendants are able to dispute their culpability for crimes committed where they lack the capacity to form criminal intent. Thus, in theory, a neuroimage depicting defective brain functioning could demonstrate a defendant’s inability to form the requisite criminal intent. Due to early successes in …

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Architects Of Justice: The Prosecutor’S Role And Resolving Whether Inadmissible Evidence Is Material Under The Brady Rule, Blaise Niosi

Fordham Law Review

In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant’s guilt or punishment upon request.  The Court’s subsequent expansion of its holding in Brady has formed the “Brady rule,” which requires the prosecution to learn of and to disclose to the defendant all material exculpatory and impeachment information.  The Court defined “material” as information that would cause a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had it been disclosed.

Currently, a circuit court split exists regarding whether evidence is material for purposes of the Brady …

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

On April 4, 2014, the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Evidence convened the Symposium on the Challenges of Electronic Evidence. The purpose of the symposium was "to consider the intersection of the evidence rules and emerging technologies" and explore what rule changes, if any, might be warranted in light of sweeping changes in the way people communicate.1 As an unapologetic advocate for changes to the hearsay rules, I thought it a happy coincidence that the symposium coincided with Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner's call for sweeping hearsay reform. In a 2013 article, eHearsay, I proposed a hearsay exception …

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

The Phillip D. Reed Lecture Series: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules

The Adverse Inference Instruction After Revised Rule 37(E): An Evidence-Based Proposal, Shira A. Sheindlin, Natalie M. Orr

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The rule against hearsay covers a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but does not cover a statement offered for another purpose. Meanwhile, the Best Evidence Rule states that a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph must produce the original or account for its nonproduction. Does this mean that the Rule is inapplicable when a party seeks to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in a writing, recording or photograph? Most courts have answered this question in the affirmative. This essay argues these courts are wrong.

Symposium On The Challenges Of Electronic Evidence, Daniel J. Capra, Sidney A. Fitzwater, Peter Pitegoff, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Paul Grimm, John Haried, Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Jeffrey Bellin, Paul Scechtman, Deirdre M. Smith, Shira A. Scheindlin, David Shonka, Daniel Gelb, Andrew Goldsmith, George Paul, Paul Lippe

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Shield Law - The Qualified Privilege Of Newscasters & Journalists In Non-Confidential News - Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Combest, 828 N.E.2d 583 (N.Y. 2005), Albert V. Messina Jr.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, In The Matter Of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 "Doe Law Firm" V. Spitzer, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Blew It: The Confrontation Clause & Breathalyzers As Testimonial Evidence, Stephanie Tuorto

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Putting The Cat Back In The Bag: Involuntary Confessions And Self-Incrimination, Joseph A. Iemma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidentiary Use Of Photographic Identification: Is It Time For New York To Reevaluate Its Singular Exception?, Daniela Giordano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Yates V. United States: A Case Study In Overcriminalization, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

In Yates v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether tossing undersized fish overboard can be prosecuted under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, a law aimed at preventing massive frauds of the sort that led to the collapse of Enron and sent shock waves throughout the economy. Although the legal issue is narrow, the case has far-reaching significance. The Yates prosecution is a case study in the dangers posed by “overcriminalization”: the existence of multitudinous, often overlapping criminal laws that are so poorly defined that they sweep within their ambit conduct far afield from their intended target.

The …

We The People: Juries, Not Judges, Should Be The Gatekeepers Of Expert Evidence, Krista M. Pikus

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note urges restoration of the proper balance of power between judges and juries regarding expert evidence. Our justice system has steadily moved away from letting juries decide important questions of fact and toward putting the decisionmaking power into the hands of judges. The recent developments in evidence law, requiring judges to act as the “gatekeepers” of expert evidence, present significant obstacles for plaintiffs attempting to get cases to a jury. This newer standard in expert evidence is a violation of the foundational precept in American jurisprudence that the people should be the sovereign, not the judge.

What The Best Evidence Rule Is - And What It Isn't, Cynthia Ford

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

No abstract provided.