The Duty to Investigate and the Availability of Expert Witnesses

To assess the likelihood that the proposed rule will assure better representation for criminal defendants, this Article proceeds as follows: Part I provides a general review of the effective assistance of counsel standard. Next, Part II focuses on the specific duty of defense counsel to investigate. Part III then examines the constitutional right of indigent criminal defendants to have expert assistance at government expense. Part IV proceeds to examine proposed Rule 707 and argues that it will not accomplish its purpose unless criminal defendants and their counsel have access to expert resources that match those relied upon by the government. Finally, Part V concludes by asking an overarching question that every judge and indigent defense lawyer ought to ask: Can defense counsel have a fair opportunity to investigate, appropriately assess, and challenge forensic evidence and testimony without the assistance of expert testimony

Rethinking the Rationale(s) for Hearsay Exceptions

The thirty-seven principal provisions that permit out-of-court statements to be admitted for their truth under the Federal Rules of Evidence are found in Article VIII of the Rules. There are eight provisions in Rule 801(d), twenty-three provisions in Rule 803, five provisions in Rule 804 and one provision in Rule 807 that can be relied upon to admit hearsay evidence for its truth value

Rethinking the Rationale(s) for Hearsay Exceptions

The thirty-seven principal provisions that permit out-of-court statements to be admitted for their truth under the Federal Rules of Evidence are found in Article VIII of the Rules. There are eight provisions in Rule 801(d), twenty-three provisions in Rule 803, five provisions in Rule 804 and one provision in Rule 807 that can be relied upon to admit hearsay evidence for its truth value

Understanding the Jury with the Help of Social Science

A Review of Inside the Jury by Reid Hastie, Steven Penrod and Nancy Penningto

Is the current state of medical ethics education having an impact on medical students?

Medical education prepares medical students as they transition from the classroom to clinical setting in caring for patients through education in the sciences, pharmacology, and medicine basics—but does it leave room for the courses that lack scientific basis, such as medical ethics? Current research has shown that medical students do not place much emphasis on medical ethics. This leads to skepticism and wariness for medical students to speak up about their concerns if faced with an ethical situation. The “hidden curriculum” that is seen in many medical schools has a large impact on medical students’ impressions of how to deal with ethical cases in the hospital. The unintended influence many physicians have on medical students appears to have a strong impact on the development of students’ character. There are ample opportunities for students to engage ethical cases and theories while in school. Research has shown that only a moderate increase in the amount of hours medical students spend over their four-year education has a dramatic increase in their understanding of ethics in the workplace. Understanding theories, analyzing case studies, and holding small-group reflections are a few examples of ways to increase student exposure to medical ethics. It would be difficult to create a universal curriculum for medical schools to incorporate medical ethics more integrally, but these options provide segues into increasing their exposure at a critical time in their career development

Guilt Assuming Hypotheticals: Basic Character Evidence Rules

The accused in a criminal case has the right to offer evidence of a pertinent character trait in order to cast doubt on whether he or she would commit the crime charged by the government. This right gives the accused an opportunity to offer predisposition evidence that is otherwise generally inadmissible. Calling a character witness is not without risk, however. The principal risk is that the witness may be cross-examined about specific acts that are inconsistent with the character to which the witness attests. This article discusses Michelson v. United States, and United States v. Pirani, the latter which reminds us that a federal defendant has the option of calling a character witness to testify as to reputation, opinion, or both; a witness called as a reputation witness may end up offering opinion testimony by volunteering support for the defendant; and guilt assuming questions are now perceived by many courts to be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence

Authentication and Hearsay: Which Trumps?

This article addresses the relationship between two federal rules of evidence: Rules 104(a) and 104(b) and which standards a trial judge should apply in admitting hearsay evidence when its authentication is in question. Focusing on United States v. Harvey, 117 F.3d 1044 (7th Circ. 1997) and a simple hypothetical, the article concludes that evidence must be authenticated under Rule 104(b) as well as satisfying the hearsay rule and Rule 104(a)

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and Criminal Cases

This article examines United States v. Davis, 596 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2010) to illustrate the kind of protection Federal Rule of Evidence 408 can afford a criminal defendant who seeks to exclude evidence of an offer to settle what appears to be a civil dispute