Introductory Circuit Analysis - 14th Global Edition Robert Boylestad
https://ebookmass.com/product/introductory-circuit-analysis-14thglobal-edition-robert-boylestad/
ebookmass.com
Wolf Takes the Lead Terry Spear
https://ebookmass.com/product/wolf-takes-the-lead-terry-spear-2/
ebookmass.com
Engineering Economy 8th Edition Leland Blank
https://ebookmass.com/product/engineering-economy-8th-edition-lelandblank/
ebookmass.com
Building Complex Temporal Explanations of Crime : History, Institutions and Agency 1st Edition Stephen Farrall
https://ebookmass.com/product/building-complex-temporal-explanationsof-crime-history-institutions-and-agency-1st-edition-stephen-farrall/
ebookmass.com
Domestication in Action: Past and Present Human-Reindeer Interaction in Northern Fennoscandia Anna-Kaisa Salmi
https://ebookmass.com/product/domestication-in-action-past-andpresent-human-reindeer-interaction-in-northern-fennoscandia-annakaisa-salmi/
ebookmass.com
Constituting Freedom: Machiavelli and Florence Fabio Raimondi
https://ebookmass.com/product/constituting-freedom-machiavelli-andflorence-fabio-raimondi/
ebookmass.com
5.9JudicialNoticeofLaws
510–LawoftheForum
511–FederalLaw
512–LawofSisterStates
5.13–LawofForeignCountries
514–MunicipalOrdinances
515–AdministrativeRegulations
516–JurisdictionofCourts
5.17JudicialNoticeProcess
5.18JudicialNoticeinCriminalCases
519Summary
Chapter6 Presumptions,Inferences,andStipulations
61Introduction
6.2DefinitionsandDistinctions
63ReasonsforPresumptionsandInferences
64PresumptionsofLaw
65PresumptionsofFact
66ClassesofPresumptions
67SpecificPresumptionSituations
68–Innocence
69–Sanity
610–Suicide
611–PossessionofFruitsofCrime
612–ThataPersonIntendstheOrdinaryConsequencesofHisorHerVoluntaryActs
613–KnowledgeoftheLaw
614–FlightorConcealment
615–UnexplainedAbsenceasDeath
616–RegularityofOfficialActs
617ConstitutionalityTestsforPresumptionsandInferences
618Stipulations
6.19–PolygraphTests
620Summary GeneralAdmissibilityTests
Chapter7 RelevancyandMateriality
71Introduction
7.2RelevancyDefined
73AdmissibilityofRelevantEvidence
74ReasonsforExclusionofRelevantandMaterialEvidence
75RelevancyofParticularMatters
7.6–IdentityofPersons
77–IdentityofThings
78–CircumstancesPrecedingtheCrime
79–SubsequentIncriminatingorExculpatoryCircumstances
7.10–Defenses
7.11–CharacterEvidence
712–ProofofOtherCrimes,Wrongs,orActs
713–ExperimentalandScientificEvidence
7.14–RelevancyofCybercrimeEvidence
7.15Summary
Chapter8
CompetencyofEvidenceandWitnesses
81Introduction
82Definitions
83GeneralCategoriesofIncompetentEvidence
84CompetencyofEvidenceDocumentaryEvidence
85–TestsandExperiments
86–ConductofTrainedDogs
87–TelephoneConversations
88NegativeEvidenceasCompetentEvidence
89EvidenceCompetentforSomePurposesbutNotforOthers
810CompetencyofWitnesses
811–MentalIncapacity
812–Children
813–HusbandandWife
814–ConvictionofCrime
815–ReligiousBelief
8.16CompetencyoftheJudgeasaWitness
817CompetencyofaJurorasaWitness
818Summary
EvidenceviaWitnessTestimony
Chapter9
ExaminationofWitnesses
Chapter14
RealEvidence
141Introduction
142AdmissibilityRequirements
14.3ExhibitionofPerson
144ArticlesConnectedWiththeCrime
145ViewoftheScene
146Photographs
14.7MotionPictures,Videotapes,andDigitalVideoRecordings
14.8X-rays,CATScans,andMRIImages
149SoundRecordings,PhoneVoiceMessages,andTexts
1410Diagrams,Maps,andModels
14.11CourtroomDemonstrationsandExperiments
14.12PreservationandDisclosureofEvidenceFavorabletotheDefense
1413Summary
Chapter15
ResultsofExaminationsandTests
151Introduction
152ExaminationofthePerson
153IntoxicationTests
154BloodGroupingTestsandBloodComparisons
155PolygraphExaminations
156“TruthSerum”Results
157FingerprintComparisons
158BallisticsExperiments
159SpeedDetectionReadings
1510NeutronActivationAnalysis
1511DeoxyribonucleicAcid(DNA)Tests
1512OtherExaminationsandTests
1513Summary
ExclusionofEvidenceonConstitutionalGrounds
Chapter16
EvidenceUnconstitutionallyObtained
161Introduction
162DevelopmentoftheExclusionaryRule
163SearchandSeizureExclusions
164ExclusionofEvidenceObtainedbyIllegalWiretappingorEavesdropping
16.5ExclusionofConfessionsObtainedinViolationofConstitutionalProvisions
166Self-incriminationandRelatedProtections
167DueProcessExclusions
168RighttoCounselasItRelatestotheExclusionofEvidence
16.9Summary
PARTII
JudicialDecisionsRelatingtoPartI
TableofCases
CasesRelatingtoChapter1
CasesRelatingtoChapter2
CasesRelatingtoChapter3
CasesRelatingtoChapter4
CasesRelatingtoChapter5
CasesRelatingtoChapter6
CasesRelatingtoChapter7
CasesRelatingtoChapter8
CasesRelatingtoChapter9
CasesRelatingtoChapter10
CasesRelatingtoChapter11
CasesRelatingtoChapter12
CasesRelatingtoChapter13
CasesRelatingtoChapter14
CasesRelatingtoChapter15
CasesRelatingtoChapter16
AppendixI:FederalRulesofEvidence
AppendixII:UniformRulesofEvidence
IndexofCases
SubjectIndex
Acknowledgments
TheauthorwouldliketothankEllenBoyne,editor,forallofherdiligentandcarefulworkandassistancein producingtheThirteenthEditionofCriminalEvidenceSpecialthanksgotoGrantNeeley,Chairmanofthe UniversityofDaytonDepartmentofPoliticalScience,forhissupportandunderstandinginavarietyofareas thatfosteredtheresearchandcompletionofthisedition
1.1.Introduction
Tothelayobserverofanycriminaltrial,theactivitiesoftheattorneysandthejudgeoftenconfoundobvious logic,creatingconfusionabouttheproceduressurroundingtheadmissionandexclusionofevidenceThe formoftheobjectionsoffered,theargumentspresentedbytheattorneys,andthejudge’sreactionsonlyaddto theconfusionLogicallyassumingthatthepurposeofatrialistoseekthetruth,thelayobserverislikelytobe challengedbyobjectionstotheintroductionofapparentlyrelevantevidenceObserversmayconcludethat evidencethatcouldhaveadirectbearingonthecaseis,infact,excludedfromuseatthetrial.Tounderstand whycertainevidenceisadmittedandotherevidenceisexcluded,itishelpfultostudythehistoryand evolutionoftherulesofevidenceinseveralculturesandnationsacrosshistory
EvidenceProof,eitherwrittenorunwritten,ofallegationsatissuebetweenparties
ObjectionAresistanceorprotestonlegalgroundstotheadmissibilityofevidenceortotheentryofan orderorjudgment
RelevantevidenceEvidencehavinganytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisof consequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithout theevidenceFedREvid401
1.2.EarlyAttemptstoDetermineGuiltorInnocence
Throughouttheages,humankindhassoughtfairmethodsofreachingthetruthincriminalcasesEach culturearrivedatamethodthatwasconsistentwiththatcultureSomeofthesesystemsofdeterminingguilt orinnocencewereridiculousandoftenbarbaric.However,historyhashelpedsucceedinggenerationsto developsystemsthataremoreworkable
Everytribeandeverypeopledevisedasystemforprotectingthelivesandpropertyofitscitizens Authoritiesnoted,however,thatonlyafewculturesdevelopedawell-defined,organized,continuousbodyof legalideasandmethodsthatcouldbecalledalegalsystemAccordingtoWigmore,16legalsystemsdeveloped toastageatwhichtheycouldberecognizedasalegalsystem:Egyptian,Mesopotamian,Chinese,Hindu, Hebrew,Greek,Maritime,Roman,Celtic,Germanic,Church,Japanese,Mohammedan,Slavic,Romanesque, andAnglican.1Althoughallofthesesystemshadsomeeffectonmodernevidencerules,onlyafewofthe oldersystemshavebeenselectedfordiscussionbecausetheyrepresentsystemsthatwereadoptedinpartby otherculturesandeventuallyledtoourjudge–jurysystem,whichinturnwasresponsibleforourrulesof evidence.Someoftheproceduresthatdevelopedunderthesesystemsaregone,whereassomeremain.
A.EgyptianLegalSystem
IntheEgyptiansystem(theoldestofthesystemsjustlisted),thecourtwasmadeupof30judgeschosen fromthestatesthatconstitutedEgypt.Thedefendantwasadvisedinwritingofthechargesagainsthimorher, andheorshewasauthorizedtoanswereachchargeinwritingby:(1)assertingthatheorshedidnotdoit;(2) statingthatifheorshedidit,itwasnotwrongful;or(3)ifitwaswrongful,itshouldbearalesserpenaltythan thatadvocatedbyhisorheraccusers.Itisinterestingtonotethatatthistime(beginningatapproximately4000 BCE)allformalproceedingsofthecourtwereconductedwithoutspeechesfromadvocatesItwasbelieved thatspeechesofadvocateswouldcloudthelegalissues,andthosespeeches,combinedwiththeclevernessof thespeakers,thespelloftheirdelivery,andthetearsoftheaccused,wouldinfluencemanypersonstoignore thestrictrulesoflawandthestandardsoftruth2
TheGreekhistorianDiodorusdescribestheproceduredevelopedbytheEgyptiansasfollows:
Afterthepartieshadthustwicepresentedtheircaseinwriting,thenitwasthetaskofthethirtyjudgestodiscussamongthemselvestheir judgmentandofthechiefjusticetohandtheimageoftruthtooneortheotheroftheparties3
B.MesopotamianLegalSystem
UndertheearlyMesopotamiansystem,thekingwasthefountainofjustice,receivingthelawfromdivine guidance,butunderKingHammurabi,approximately1795to1750BCE, 4thesystemenvisionedthekingasthe sourceoflaw,grantingthekingtheabilitytopersonallyadministerjusticeortoallowlocalgovernorsor courtsoflawtohandlethematters.5TheMesopotamiansystemdidnotoperatewithpoliceoraprosecutor,but thejudges,whowereoriginallyroyalpriests,foundthefactsfromtheevidenceandappliedthelaw6Arecord ofthetrialsofthisperiodindicatesthatthejudgescalledupontheaccusersto“producewitnessesor instrumentstoshowguilt”Thejudgesthenexaminedthefactsandreachedaconclusionastoguiltor innocenceOncemattershadbeenproven,Hammurabi’sCodehadharshaspects,becauseitnoted,“[i]faman destroytheeyeofanotherman,theyshalldestroyhiseye”7Thisbodyoflawwasperhapstheoriginofthe modernuseoftestimonyandrealevidence8
CHebrewLegalSystem
IntheearlyperiodoftheHebrewlegalsystem,rabbisdevelopedthelawThelawwastiedcloselyto
1.3.ModernLegalSystemsRomanesqueSystem
Fromtheworld’s16systems,asdescribedbyWigmore,threeprimaryworldsystemsexisttodayThese systemshavespreadbeyondthecountryandpeopleoftheiroriginThesearetheRomanesque,theAnglican, andtheMohammedansystems.Thetwothataremostdominantinmoderntimesandofmostimportancein WesterncivilizationaretheRomanesqueandAnglican
ApproximatelyfivecenturiesaftertheRomanEmpirefell,thelawtextsthatwerepreparedbyRoman scholarswereresurrectedandbecamethebasisofthelegalsysteminItaly,theninmanyothercountriesin Europe,andfinallyfarbeyondEuropeInItaly,thecityofBolognabecamethecenterofthestudyofthe Romanlaw,andlegalscholarsarrivedfromalloverEuropeDuringthe1200s,1300s,and1400s,thousandsof foreignstudentscarriedthenewadvancedideasoftheRomanlawtothecountriesofEurope.Facultiesoflaw sprangupinSpain,France,Germany,andtheNetherlandsRomanlaw,oramodificationofit,wascodified andnationalized
Intheearly1800s,afterthreecenturiesofeffort,Francecompletedcivil,criminal,andcommercialcodesand developedrulesofcivilandcriminalprocedureFreedomofcontract,recognitionofprivateproperty,and familysolidaritywerethethreeideologicalpillarsoftheCodeNapoleon18Napoleonhimselfpresidedatmany ofthedebates,andhiswishesshapedthecode.19Thisso-calledCodeNapoleonwassoontranslatedintoalmost everylanguageandsetthefashionintheotherEuropeancountriesTheCodeNapoleonof1804servedasthe basisforLouisianalaw20andremainsastronginfluencebothinprinciplesandinlegalterminology21Itwas adoptedinAustriain1811,theNetherlandsin1838,Italyin1865,Spainin1888,Germanyin1898,and Switzerlandin1907.TheCodehadtakeneightcenturiesfromtheresurrectionoftheRomanlawinthe1100s tothefinalformationoftheRomanesquelawinthe1800s
WhentheRomanesquesystemwasfirstdeveloped,thejudgesestablishedtherulesforgatheringand admittingevidenceandwerethefindersoffactaswellasthelaw.Atfirsttherewerefewrulesofevidence, buteventually,acomplexsetofrulesforobtainingandweighingevidenceevolvedAsoftenhappens,these rulesbecamemerelyrestrictivethatis,theywerenotguidesbutself-sufficientformulas
Therestrictiverulesofevidencebecamesooverdevelopedthattheywereabolishedasbeingamere hindranceToreplacethissystem,thecontinentalnationsofFrance,Germany,andItalyadoptedasystemthat allowedajudgetohearandweighanyevidence,withoutlimitationsAlthoughcertainruleshavedevelopedin recenttimestolimitthetypeandamountofevidencetobeconsideredinthisjudge-directedsystem,thereare noelaboratecontrollingrules,suchashavebeendevelopedintheAnglo-Americansystem.Amainreasonfor thisisthatthejudge’sdiscretion,evenwhenajuryisused,largelydetermineswhatevidencewillbeadmitted
TheRomanesquesystemisnowusedinmanyareasoftheworld,includingQuebec,Cairo,Budapest,and BuenosAires.Millionsofpeoplenowliveunderthissystem,andofthethreeworldsystemstoday,the Romanesquesystemisthemostextensive.In1928,itgovernedalmostone-sixthoftheworld’sinhabitants.22
InexplainingthepurposeandconstructionoftheFederalRulesofEvidence,thedraftersincludedthis comment:
Theserulesshallbeconstruedtosecurefairnessinadministration,eliminationofunjustifiableexpenseanddelay,andpromotionofgrowth anddevelopmentofalawofevidencetotheendthatthetruthmaybeascertainedandproceedingsjustlydetermined33
TheadoptionoftheFederalRulesofEvidencehascontributedtoestablishingauniformbodyoflaw. However,thereissomedoubtthattheadoptionoftheruleshasachievedthegoalofsimplicitythatitsdrafters envisioned.34
B.UniformRulesofEvidence
AsCongressworkedtowardadoptionoftheFederalRulesofEvidence,theNationalConferenceof CommissionersonUniformStateLawspreparednewUniformRulesofEvidencepatternedaftertheFederal RulesIn2005,theCommissionersapprovedanupdateddraftoftheUniformRulesofEvidencethatreflected thethen-currentamendmentstotheFederalRulesThiscodificationofevidencelawswasdesignedand suggestedforadoptionbythestatelegislaturesandhasbeenperiodicallyrevisedtokeepitinfairconformity withtheFederalRules,35whichfederalcourtshavefollowedsince1975.
Toavoidconfusionandencourageuniformity,thenumberingsystemsforthetwosetsofrulesare consistentAstheFederalRuleshavebeenchangedbyCongress,theCommissionersonUniformStateLaws havemadeanefforttobringtheUniformRulesintoconformity
AstheevidencerulesfollowedinthefederalandstatecourtsoftheUnitedStatestodayareproductsofa combinationoflegislativeacts(asdiscussedinpreviousparagraphs)andcourtdecisions,astudyofevidence requiresanexaminationoffederalandstatelegislationandthecasesinterpretingtherules
1.7.FutureDevelopmentoftheRulesofEvidence
Instudyingrulesofcriminalevidence,itmustberecognizedthatourrulesareaproductofprogressive growthandadaptationtonewcircumstancesTherulesofevidencewillcontinuetochangeand,infact, probablywillchangemorerapidlyinthenextseveralyearsasjudicialofficialsandmembersoflegislatures attempttofashionamoreeffectivesystemtomeettheneedsofanevolvingsocietyEvidencerulechanges mayreflectsomenewpressingsocialneeds,suchasallowingadmissionintoevidenceofpriorsexualoffenses byadefendantwhenotheroffensesmightnotbeadmissibleandlimitingtheadmissibilityofthepastsexual historyofthevictim.43AlterationstotheDeadMan’sstatutes44indicatethattheoldfearsoffraudby witnessesagainstthedeadhavebeenoverblown,andtheusualavenuesofcross-examinationmaywork perfectlywell45ChangeshavecometootherareasofevidencelawForexample,olderevidence interpretationsallowedthepastsexualhistoryofcomplainingwitnessestobeintroducedinsexcrime prosecutionsHowever,modernevidencecodesgenerallylimitthepriorsexualhistoryofthevictimofasex crime,eventhoughitcouldbearguedthatsuchhistorymighthavesomeminimalrelevancy.Thechangesto theDeadMan’sstatutesandlimitingpriorsexualactivitymaystandthetestoftime,remaininglongenoughto havelastinginfluenceonthelawofevidence
Demonstrativeofevolutionarydevelopmentoftherulesandinterpretationsoftherulesofevidenceisthe changemadetothemaritaltestimonialprivilegerecognizedbyfederalcourtsPriortoTrammelvUnited States, 46bothhusbandandwifewereconsideredholdersofthetestimonialprivilegeandcouldpreventthe otherfromtestifyingagainstadefendantspouseTheoriginaltheoryinvolvedtheprotectionandpromotionof maritalharmony.TheSupremeCourtreasonedthatif“onespouseiswillingtotestifyagainsttheotherina criminalproceedingwhateverthemotivationtheirrelationshipisalmostcertainlyindisrepair;thereis probablylittleinthewayofmaritalharmonyfortheprivilegetopreserve.”47Insuchasituationinfederal courts,theoldrulehadtogivewaytothemoderninterpretationofthemaritaltestimonialprivilegefavoring admissibilityofthetestimonyofferedbyawillingwitnessspouse
Theapplicationoftherulesofevidencetotheadministrationofthelawisandshouldbewithinthesound discretionofthejudiciaryHowever,contrarytostatementsmadeinsomecases,recentdecisionsofreviewing courtsappeartorequiremorestrictapplicationoftherulesofevidence,thusleavinglowercourtswithless discretionconcerningtheadministrationofthebusinessofthecourtandtheadmissibilityofevidence.
ActsofCongresshaveeffectsontheadmissionofevidence,andexecutivebranchordersmayhavesome similareffectsinothertypesofproceedingsFollowingtheattacksofSeptember11,2001,Congresspassedthe USAPATRIOTAct,whichchangedsomeofthewaysinwhichthefederalgovernmentispermittedtocollect anduseevidence.48AlthoughtheUSAPATRIOTActwasdesignedtomakethenationsaferfromterrorist activity,somecivillibertariansbecameconcernedthatthenewpowersgrantedtofederallawenforcement couldhavetheeffectofcurtailingsomecivilrightsAmongotherthingsthataffecttheuseoradmissionof evidenceinsomecases,thePresidentoftheUnitedStatesissuedanExecutiveOrderthatlimitedsome indictments,jurytrials,andothercivillibertiesofsomenoncitizenindividualsaccusedofterroristactivities49 ThesameExecutiveOrderdirectedthatthedefensesecretaryissueordersthatpurportedtolimitadmissionof evidenceinspecialtribunalsincasesoftrialsofinternationalterrorists.50However,theForeignIntelligence SurveillanceActof1978authorizedsomeevidentiarysearchespriortoobtainingawarrant,butthestatute anticipatedthatawarrantwouldbeforthcominginmostcasesTheActexcludedtheuseofanyevidence unlawfullyobtainedthroughillegalelectronicsearchesandsurveillance51
Inanearliereffortatinfluencingtheadmissionofevidenceincourts,CongresspassedtheOmnibusCrime ControlandSafeStreetsActof1968,whichincludedaTitleIIIsectionthatregulatedthemannerinwhich wiretapevidencecouldbeadmittedincourtAspartofTitleIII,theCongressprovidedthatevidenceseized illegallyinviolationofthestatutewouldnotbeadmissibleincourtsorothervenues52Inanotheradjustment ofsearchandseizurelaw,theCongressamendedtheForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceActbypassingrelevant provisionsofthePatriotActthathadtheeffectoflimitingtheuseoftheForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct fordomesticlawenforcementpurposes.53Insummary,theCongresshasadjustedtheadmissionofseized
