Evidence
Antiracist Expert Evidence
This Article introduces “antiracist expert evidence,” an underutilized tool to prove racism in court. Based on a nationwide survey of defense attorneys, it explores the evidence’s utility, identifies barriers to use, and offers strategies to overcome them, aiming to begin to level the evidentiary playing field for criminal defendants.
The Intercircuit Exclusionary Rule
Federal courts have long resolved intercircuit suppression disputes using a choice-of-law framework and applying the precedent of the circuit where the search occurred. This Comment shows that this approach is fundamentally mistaken. Choice-of-law problems only arise when different laws, not different interpretations of the same law, are involved.
The De Facto Reporter’s Privilege
There is no formal, federal reporter’s privilege against disclosing confidential information. Drawing on new historical sources, this Article shows how all three branches of government have deployed a variety of de facto protections for reporters. These conclusions enrich our understanding of whether a statutory shield is required today.
Competing Exclusionary Rules in Multistate Investigations: Resolving Conflicts of State Search-and-Seizure Law
The existing approaches to conflicts of state search-and-seizure laws are either theoretically or practically flawed. When a search implicates multiple states’ laws, courts should undertake a two-step analysis. First, they should determine whether a conflict exists; and second, they should apply the law of the officer who performed the search.
Prosecutors Respond to Calls for Forensic Science Reform: More Sharks in Dirty Water
In September 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report questioning the validity of a number of forensic science techniques routinely offered as evidence (“PCAST Report”). This report raises familiar issues and recommendations. In 2009, the National Research Council (NRC) released Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, a report on the state of forensic science (“NRC Report”). The NRC Report found that numerous forensic science disciplines relied on deficient scientific foundations, interpretative procedures lacked rigor, analysts took inadequate measures to avoid error and bias, and forensic examiners testified with unwarranted certainty. Research suggests that the NRC Report has had a marked impact on defendants’ awareness of the fallibility of “soft” forensic disciplines, which has led to a number of post-conviction challenges to forensic evidence. Unfortunately, these challenges have rarely been successful. Perhaps as a result, forensic disciplines have advanced little in the intervening seven years to address the NRC Report’s concerns.
Oral Tradition and the Kennewick Man
In April 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmedthat the ancient human body discovered in 1996 near Kennewick, Washington,often referred to as the “Kennewick Man” or “The Ancient One,” is geneticallyrelated to modern-day Native Americans. Thisconfirmation ended a twenty-year-long struggle between scientists at the Smithsonian, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and Native American tribes ofthe Columbia Plateau, and will now jumpstart the process for repatriation ofthe Kennewick Man to the Native American tribes for reburial in accordance withthe Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA).
Predicting Utah v. Streiff’s Civil Rights Impact
The Supreme Court’s recent Utah v. Strieff decision declined to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence seized as a result of an arrest that followed an unconstitutional stop. The opinion, in conjunction with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, has reanimated discussions regarding when, if ever, criminal defendants can expect the exclusionary rule to apply. When applied, the exclusionary rule renders inadmissible evidence recovered through “unconstitutional police conduct”; the evidence’s exclusion reinforces the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Unlike most discussions of Strieff, which focus on its implications for criminal defendants, this Essay examines how Strieff will impact civil rights plaintiffs’ ability to recover damages for unconstitutional stops under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Warrant Canaries and Disclosure by Design: The Real Threat to National Security Letter Gag Orders
Hall v. Florida and Ending the Death Penalty for Severely Mentally Ill Defendants
Reconceptualizing the Burden of Proof
122 Yale L.J. 1254 (2013). The preponderance standard is conventionally described as an absolute probability threshold of 0.5. This Essay argues that this absolute characterization of the burden of proof is wrong. Rather than focusing on an absolute threshold, the Essay reconceptualizes the preponderance standard as a probability ratio and shows how doing so eliminates many of the classical problems associated with probabilistic theories of evidence. Using probability ratios eliminates the so-called Conjunction Paradox, and developing the ratio tests under a Bayesian perspective further explains the Blue Bus problem and other puzzles surrounding statistical evidence. By harmonizing probabilistic theories of proof with recent critiques advocating for abductive models (inference to the best explanation), the Essay bridges a contentious rift in current evidence scholarship.
Recognizing Character: A New Perspective on Character Evidence
121 Yale L.J. 1912 (2012). Courts have historically regulated the use of character in trials because of its potential to prejudice juries. In order to regulate this type of proof, courts must be able to recognize what is and is not character evidence, but past attempts to define character in the law of evidence have been unsatisfactory. This Note proposes a new framework to help courts unravel this age-old mystery. By considering legal scholarship in conjunction with psychological research and employing common tools of statutory interpretation, this Note contends that proof must have two components for it to be regulated by the character scheme in the Federal Rules of Evidence: propensity and morality. It then explains the elements of each component under the Federal Rules regime, examines several evidentiary examples drawn from real cases to illustrate how courts would apply the proposed framework, and concludes by discussing the broader implications of this new perspective on character evidence.
When Machines Are Watching: How Warrantless Use of GPS Surveillance Technology Violates the Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Searches
Introduction Federal and state law enforcement officials throughout the nation are currently using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for automated, prolonged surveillance without obtaining warrants. As a result, cases are proliferating in which criminal defendants are challenging law enforcement’s warrantless uses of GPS surveillance technology, and courts are looking for direction from the Supreme Court. Most recently, a split has emerged between the Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue. In United States v. Pineda-Moreno, the Ninth Circuit relied on United States v. Knotts—which approved the limited use of beeper technology without a warrant—to uphold warrantless use of GPS surveillance technology. However, in United States v. Maynard, the D.C. Circuit held that warrants are required for law enforcement use of GPS tracking devices. In distinguishing Knotts, the D.C. Circuit pointed to the vast differences between the relatively primitive beeper technology used almost thirty years ago and the unprecedented power of GPS surveillance technology used today. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and various state courts are similarly divided. In light of this confusion, the Supreme Court has recently agreed to review the issue, granting certiorari from the decision of the D.C. Circuit in Maynard and leaving the Pineda-Moreno petition in a holding pattern. On November 8, the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the case, which was docketed under the new name United States v. Jones. The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment doctrine, including its cases evaluating new surveillance technologies, has always been informed by one of the Amendment’s animating principles: its mandate to prevent abuse of police power. While the Court has not always articulated this theory of the Fourth Amendment as clearly as it could have, a careful review of the case law reveals a concern about abuse and “a too permeating police surveillance.” This reading demands that, in any review of new surveillance technology, courts must evaluate the technology’s potential for abuse.