Evidence Commons^™

Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Framing The Prosecution, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

The enormous value of Dan Simon’s In Doubt lies not just in its nuanced exploration of the challenges to accurate criminal factfinding, but also in its challenge to us to rethink trials themselves. Even as we endeavor to give criminal defendants the means and license to raise reasonable doubts, we need to think more about when and how those doubts can be allayed. Just because most jurisdictions have not come out of the first round of play – the one in which defendants get the tools to poke holes in the cases against them – does not mean it is …

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 …

Frcp 26 Vs. Fre 408: Why Settlement Negotiations Should Be Privileged Against Third-Party Discovery, Andrew Sher

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note proposes that courts should recognize a settlementnegotiation privilege because it will incentivize parties to settle. Settling disputes is beneficial to the judicial system as it is more efficient and effective at resolving disputes than trying cases. Recognizing a settlement-negotiation privilege will increase the number of settlements by avoiding the free-rider problem that the Federal Circuit's approach in In re MSTG will create. Similarly, creating a settlement-negotiation privilege will avoid the uncertainty caused by not recognizing a privilege or requiring heightened standards for discovery. The confidentiality and certainty of a settlement-negotiation privilege will encourage parties to settle as well …

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.

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 …

The Exclusionary Rule As A Symbol Of The Rule Of Law, Jenia I. Turner

SMU Law Review

Throughout South America, Southern and Eastern Europe, and East Asia, more than two dozen countries have transitioned to democracy since the 1980s. A remarkable number of these have adopted an exclusionary rule (mandating that evidence obtained unlawfully by the government is generally inadmissible in criminal trials) as part of broader legal reforms. Democratizing countries have adopted exclusionary rules even though they are not required to do so by any international treaty and there is no indication that there is widespread popular demand for such rules. This has occurred at a time when the rule has been weakened in the United …

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 …

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 …

Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier

Scholarly Publications

Scientific evidence is a field in crisis. The validity and reliability of forensic techniques have been criticized by nearly every actor in the legal community—by attorneys, judges, the legal academy, and even the National Academy of Sciences—and high-profile cases of scientific evidence gone awry have garnered national attention. Policymakers have suggested many solutions to the scientific evidence crisis, including a controversial proposal to remove complex scientific cases from state and federal dockets and to hear those cases instead in a specialized “science court.”

Science court proposals face one substantial hurdle: they have become exceedingly unpopular. But …

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.

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 …

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).

Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …

“Liking” The Social Media Revolution, Thaddeus A. Hoffmeister

School of Law Faculty Publications

As in other areas of society, social media has significantly influenced the law. Currently, civil and criminal cases can, and often do, turn on an attorney's understanding and use of social media. In the realm of family law, most practitioners view social media as an essential tool-one that could serve as grounds for malpractice if ignored. Even in legal academia-an area long resistant to change-law schools are starting to understand the impact of social media on the law and offer courses like Social Media and Criminal Law and Law and Social Media.

The goal of this essay is not to …