Evidence Commons^™

Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hits, Misses, And False Alarms In Blind And Sequential Administration Of Lineups, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Seeing Is Believing: The Anti-Inference Bias, Eyal Zamir Prof., Ilana Ritov, Doron Teichman

Indiana Law Journal

A large body of studies suggests that people are reluctant to impose liability on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, even when this evidence is more reliable than direct evidence. Current explanations for this pattern of behavior focus on factors such as the tendency of fact finders to assign low subjective probabilities to circumstantial evidence, the statistical nature of such evidence, and the fact that direct evidence can rule out with greater ease any competing factual theory regarding liability. This Article describes a set of four new experiments demonstrating that even when these factors are controlled for, the disinclination to …

Lost In Translation: Statistical Inference In Court, Erica Beecher-Monas

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Weapons Not Used In The Crime Charged, Melynda Melear

St. Thomas Law Review

In many prosecutions in which weapons have been used to commit charged offenses, the State seeks to introduce into evidence weapons not actually used in the crime but purportedly related either to the charged crime or to the credibility of a witness. For years, courts have struggled with the issue of whether the State has established the relevancy of a weapon not used in the crime underlying the case at hand as well as whether the admission of a weapon under those circumstances would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant. Case law on the relevancy of weapon evidence presents a …

Seeking Consistency For Prior Consistent Statements: Amending Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

The Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Evidence was hard at work in 2013 trying to bring resolution to a mystery that has plagued Rule 801(d)(1)(B) since its enactment thirty-eight years ago. Scholars, judges, and litigants have long pondered why the drafters of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) carved out a hearsay exemption for prior consistent statements admitted to repair impeaching attacks on witness motivations, but failed to extend the same treatment to other similarly situated prior consistencies admitted to repair other types of impeaching attacks. In May 2013, the Advisory Committee proposed an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) in an effort to …

Evidence Of Lies And Rules Of Evidence: The Admissibility Of Fmri-Based Expert Opinion Of Witness Truthfulness, William A. Woodruff

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Time Has Come For A Restatement Of Child Sex Abuse, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

When Truth Cannot Be Presumed: The Regulation Of Drug Promotion Under An Expanding First Amendment, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires that, prior to marketing a drug, the manufacturer must prove that it is safe and effective for the manufacturer’s intended uses, as shown on the proposed label. Nonetheless, physicians may prescribe drugs for other “off-label” uses, and often do so. Still, manufacturers have not been allowed to promote the unproven uses in advertisements or sales pitches.

This regime is now precarious due to an onslaught of scholarly critiques, a series of Supreme Court decisions that enlarge the First Amendment, and a landmark court of appeals decision holding that the First Amendment precludes …

Avoiding Adversarial Adjudication, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

There are a variety of procedural vehicles through which litigants may seek a substantive court ruling or order that declares or modifies their legal rights and obligations without actually litigating the merits of a case as a whole or particular issues within the case. These alternatives include defaults, failures to oppose motions for summary judgment, waivers and forfeitures, stipulations of law, confessions of error, and consent decrees. Courts presently apply different standards in determining whether to accept or allow litigants to take advantage of each of these vehicles for avoiding adversarial adjudication. Because all of these procedural alternatives share the …

Cipa Creep: The Classified Information Procedures Act And Its Drift Into Civil National Security Litigation, Ian Macdougall

National Security Law Program

This Note documents an incipient trend in the courts and Congress, which I call "CIPA creep," and investigates its implications for civil national security litigation. CIPA – the Classified Information Procedures Act – governs the use of classified information in federal criminal cases. No comparable statute exists in the civil context, where the judge-made state secrets privilege determines whether litigants may use sensitive government information. The prevailing scholarly and popular accounts hold that this privilege, in the tense post-9/11 security environment, transformed from a narrow evidentiary rule into a non-justiciability doctrine that cedes to executive branch officials the power to …

Defensible Data Deletion: A Practical Approach To Reducing Cost And Managing Risk Associated With Expanding Enterprise Data, Dennis R. Kiker

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Modern businesses are hosts to steadily increasing volumes of data, creating significant cost and risk while potentially compromising the current and future performance and stability of the information systems in which the data reside. To mitigate these costs and risks, many companies are considering initiatives to identify and eliminate information that is not needed for any business or legal purpose (a process referred to herein as “data remediation”). There are several challenges for any such initiative, the most significant of which may be the fear that information subject to a legal preservation obligation might be destroyed.

This Is Your Sword: How Damaging Are Prior Convictions To Plaintiffs In Civil Trials?, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Deirdre Bowen

Scholarly Works

The conventional wisdom in law is that a prior conviction is one of the most powerful and damaging pieces of evidence that can be offered against a witness or party. In legal lore, prior convictions seriously undercut the credibility of the witness and can derail the outcome of a trial. This Article suggests that may not always be true.

This Article details the results of an empirical study of juror decision-making that challenges the conventional wisdom about prior convictions. In our study, the prior conviction evidence did not have a direct impact on the outcome of the civil trial or …

The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I …

Comments: Trending: Proportionality In Electronic Discovery In Common Law Countries And The United States' Federal And State Courts, Laura Hunt

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the U.S. American trial system proof mainly consists of live witnesses presented in open court under oath before the judge, jury, and parties, subject to perjury laws. Cross-examination of the witnesses in that setting is the principal (though not the only) form of testing their reliability. It is for these reasons that we have a rule against hearsay (second-hand reporting in court of what someone has said outside of court).

The Exclusion Of Improperly Obtained Evidence At The International Criminal Court: A Principled Approach To Interpreting Article 69(7) Of The Rome Statute, Michael Madden

LLM Theses

This thesis examines article 69(7) of the Rome Statute, which creates an exclusionary rule for improperly obtained evidence at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ultimately, the thesis proposes how the ICC should interpret its exclusionary rule. The thesis discusses the theory underlying exclusionary rules, the evidence law and remedial law contexts within which exclusionary rules operate, and numerous comparative examples of exclusionary doctrine from within national criminal justice systems. Finally, some unique aspects of international criminal procedure are described in order to demonstrate how an international exclusionary rule might need to differ from a domestic rule, and previous jurisprudence relating …

Juror Perceptions Of Eyewitness Identification Evidence, Timothy G. Wykes

Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive)

Jurors rely on eyewitness testimony in deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Archival analyses of hundreds of post-conviction DNA exonerations have identified eyewitness misidentification as the highest individual factor contributing to wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, 2014). Internationally, criminal justice systems have employed procedural safeguards (PSs) to educate juries on factors affecting eyewitness identification accuracy. Two such safeguards include the introduction of eyewitness expert testimony during trial proceedings and the reading of cautionary instructions by a presiding judge. In an independent factorial design, this research sought to examine the effects of a model judicial caution drafted by the Ontario Judicial Council …

Setting The Tipping Point For Disclosing The Identity Of Anonymous Online Speakers: Lessons From Other Disclosure Contexts, Helen Norton

Publications

At what point should anonymous online speakers alleged to have engaged in defamatory, threatening, or other unprotected and illegal speech be required to “unmask” themselves – i.e., to disclose their identities? Courts confronted with such questions have proposed a variety of tests that seek to determine the point – I’ll call this the tipping point – at which they become sufficiently confident that disclosure’s accountability gains justify the unmasking of an anonymous online speaker. This essay suggests that an intradisciplinary approach may be helpful when choosing among these alternative tests. To this end, it recalls parallel disclosure challenges in campaign, …

No Idea What The Future Holds: The Retrospective Evidence Dilemma, Dennis Fan

Faculty Scholarship

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s predecessor established a multilevel administrative and judicial review system for special education decisions, and ever since, the volume of special education cases in federal court has ballooned. Most present cases involve disputes over whether the school district drafted an individualized education program capable of providing a child with disabilities a “free appropriate public education.” But what evidence parties can bring to these disputes is not settled. Circuit courts are split on whether “retrospective evidence” — evidence that arises after the school district drafts the individualized education program — is admissible. This Note addresses present …