4 research outputs found

    The (un)reliability of eyewitness evidence: A philosophical examination of the conflict between the psychological research and the use of eyewitnesses in the legal system

    No full text
    According to the psychologists, finders of fact erroneously---though unknowingly---place too much weight on eyewitness testimony. One consequence of this misplaced reliance is the conviction of innocent persons. To remedy this problem with eyewitness testimony, the majority of psychologists advocate the introduction of an expert in eyewitness testimony---ordinarily a research psychologist who is familiar with the factors affecting the reliability of the eyewitness's perceptions and memories---whenever eyewitness evidence is admitted. The psychologists' arguments for admitting eyewitness experts and the courts' explanations for excluding this testimony are fraught with difficulties. However, alternative remedies---those currently existing as well as potential remedies---similarly fail to resolve the problem. This thesis constitutes the first of a two-part work. In the present part, the different positions are assessed. The analysis yields three alternatives: (1) exclude all eyewitness testimony; (2) accept a partial, though far from complete, resolution; or, (3) do nothing. (Abstract shortened by UMI.

    The Pet Theft Act: Congressional Intent Plowed Under by the United States Department of Agriculture

    No full text
    In promulgating regulations under the Pet Theft Act, the USDA erred in interpreting the law, and misapplied basic rules of statutory construction

    The Unsolved Problem in Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule of Aerospatiale

    Get PDF
    In the Aerospatiale decision, the United States Supreme Court attempts to define the powers of American courts to compel discovery from foreign litigants in those courts, in light of the Hague Evidence Convention. This article initially examines the various interpretations of the Convention used to solve the apples/oranges problem, encountered by litigants from different nations and incompatible jurisprudential systems, when they seek to obtain evidence located outside the U.S. or in the control of a foreign litigant. The Court\u27s response to this problem is later addressed by an analysis of its decision, which seems to confuse the situation further, for its offers to lower courts broad discretion coupled with vague guidelines to make such decisions