-
3
-
-
85025715869
-
-
Tracy Peerage Case, 10 Cl & F 154 (1843).
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
85025733896
-
-
Imwinkelried EJ. The Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Non-testifying Expert; Reestablishing Boundaries between the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Protection. 68 Wash ULQ 19, 28 (1989).
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
85025714901
-
-
Gillies P. Opinion Evidence. 60 Australian LJ 597–612 (Jan 1986).
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
85025740004
-
-
Hand L. Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony. 15 Harv L Rev 40–58 (1901).
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
85025742821
-
-
Jacobellis v Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1964).
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
85025732396
-
-
Selection Process A. General Qualifications, 18 AFTE J 12 (July 1986).
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
85025737598
-
-
US v Abel, 469 US 45 (1984).
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
85025727705
-
-
Lexis 227 (Del 1990) Vol I.
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
85025723928
-
-
La RS. 15: 438 (1989).
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
85025726246
-
-
Guerraro v State, 720 SW 2d 233, 236 (Tex App, Austin 1986).
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
85025726107
-
-
State v Sabers, 442 NW 2d 259 (SD 1989).
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
85025718624
-
-
Devitt & Blackmar. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions. St Paul, Minn: West, 1977: 144, sec 15√02.
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
85025729956
-
-
US v Eddings, 478 F 2d 67 (6th Circ. 1973).
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
85025737525
-
-
People v Goble, 354 NE 2d 108 (Ill App 1976).
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
85025720285
-
-
People v Newby, 239 NW 2d 387 (Mich App 1976).
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
85025733908
-
-
Bridgeman v Comm, 3 Va App 523, 351 SE 2d 598 (Va 1986).
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
85025724939
-
-
Loftus E. Psychological Aspects of Courtroom Testimony. 347 Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences 27 (1980)
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
85025717660
-
-
Imwinkelried E. The Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence; a Critique from the Perspective of Juror Psychology. 100 Mil L Rev 99, 117 (Spring 1983).
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
85025742108
-
-
State v Schautz, 98 Ariz 200, 403 P 2d 521 (1965); Comm v Carroll, 412 Pa 525, 194 A 2d 911 (1963). “Juries are not bound by that seems inescapable logic to judges” per Justice Jackson in Morisette v US, 342 US 246, 276 (1952).
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
85025738194
-
-
Arizona v Youngblood, 474 US 15 (1988).
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
85025732956
-
-
The legal literature on the subject is voluminous. For an eclectic selection see Abrahamson, Criminal Law and State Constitutions: the Emergence of State Constitutional Law. 63 Texas L Rev, 1141 (1985); Wilkes, More on the New Federalism in Criminal Procedure. 63 KyLJ 873 (1975).
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
85025746697
-
-
Utter. State Constitutional Law, the United States Supreme Court, and Democratic Accountability. 64 Wash L Rev 19, 27 (1989).
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
85025746126
-
-
Brennan W. State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights. 90 Harv L Rev 489 (1977).
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
85025725557
-
-
[27, P 337]. Later decisions from the Federal Circuits have demonstrated that “bad faith” was the leitmotif of the holding in Youngblood. It has also been a nearly unprovable fact for one who has been convicted. See, for example: US v Galvan-Garcia, 872 F 2d 638 641 (5th Cir) cert denied 110 S Ct 164 (1989); Ford v Seabold, 841 F 2d 677 (6th Cir) cert denied 109 W Ct 315 (1988); US v Zambrana, 841 F 2d 1320 (7th Cir 1988); Sargent v Armontrout, 841 F 2d 220 (8th cir 1988). But where an investigating officer in a rape case failed to collect blood on the victim's jacket, gave contradictory explanations for his failure to do so, described defendant in demeaning words to his supervisor and attempted to still defendant's witnesses by asserting their testimony would not be helpful to defendant, bad faith resulting in a due process violation had been proved, Miller v Vasquez, 868 F 2d 1116 (9th Cir 1989).
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
85025740443
-
-
State v Youngblood, 164 Ariz 61, 790 P 2d 759, 760 (Ariz App 1989) review granted State v Youngblood, 1990 Ariz Lexis 169.
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
85025736617
-
-
State v Youngblood, trial transcript, p c42.
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
85025723219
-
-
State v Youngblood, 153 Ariz 50, 734 P 2d 592 (Ariz App 1987).
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
85025723972
-
-
474 US 15, 109 S Ct 333, 335 (1988).
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
85025736810
-
-
Delaware v Fensterer, 474 US 15 (1985). See critique in Scientific Sleuthing Newsletter Winter 1986; 10: 1–2.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
85025723662
-
-
Fensterer v State, 509 A 2d 1106 (1986).
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
85025735224
-
-
Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68 (1985), has been argued to have mandated a partisan expert for the defense as essential to due process. Note: Expert Services and the Indigent Criminal Defendant: The Constitutional Mandate of Ake v Oklahoma, 84 Mich L Rev 1326, 1356 (1986). See also Moriarty M, Liberty, Justice … and Experts for All, VI Law and Inequality 247, 250 (1988). See, in general, Giannelli PC, Evidentiary and Procedural Rules Governing Expert Testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1989; 34: 730, 740.
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
85025737613
-
-
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for reciprocal discovery once the defense moves for discovery from the prosecution, but the prosecution cannot initiate the discovery process and cannot obtain reciprocal discovery unless the defense intends to introduce the results of its independent scientific testing at the trial.
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
85025717288
-
-
Strickland v Washington, 467 US 1267 (1984).
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
85025735046
-
-
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution and Defense Function, Defense Function 4.1 – Duty to Investigate.
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
85025745738
-
-
DeCoster v US, 487 F 2d 1197 (DC Cir 1973); DeCoster v US, 624 F 2d 300 (DC Cir 1976); DeCoster v US, 624 F 2d 196 (DC Cir 1976).
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
85025730425
-
-
People v Speck, 41 Ill 2d 177, 242 NE 2d 208, 221 (1968). But “a large body of case law extends the attorney-client privilege to expert information” [4].
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
85025735677
-
-
Hall v State, 373 A 2d 1250 (Md Spec App 1977); Houston v State, 602 P 2d 784 (Alaska 1979).
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
85025733321
-
-
State v Mingo, 392 A 2d 590 (NJ 1978).
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
85025745480
-
-
US v Alvarez, 519 F 2d 1036 (3rd Cir 1975).
-
-
-
-
45
-
-
85025729763
-
-
Graham. Discovery of Experts Under Rule 26(b) (4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Part Two, An Empirical Study and a Proposal, 1977 U Ill L Forum 169; Comment, Discovery of the Non-witness Expert under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) (4) (B), 67 Iowa L Rev 349 (1982); Mack v Moore, 91 NC App 478, 372 SE 2D 314 (1988).
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
85025729348
-
-
Book of Daniel, chapter 13.
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
85025736173
-
-
Wigmore on Evidence, Vol 6, sec 1836.
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
85025727309
-
-
The full text of Rule 615 is: “At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause”. Most states have adopted the language of the federal rule verbatim, although several states have replaced “essential” with a lesser standard in the third category. Eg, Alaska uses “important”, while Washington uses “reasonably necessary” to connote a less stringent standard for a sequestration exemption.
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
85025718038
-
-
Joseph GP, Saltzburg SA and the Evidence Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation. Evidence in America, The Federal Rules in the States, Vol 2, Sec 49.3. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie Co, 1988.
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
85025723606
-
-
State v Zellers, 7 NJ L 185, 226 (1824).
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
85025717736
-
-
State v Jackson, 231 Neb 207, 435 NW 2d 893 (1989).
-
-
-
-
52
-
-
85025718648
-
-
Scott v State, Lexis 227 (Del 1990).
-
-
-
-
53
-
-
85025738358
-
-
State v Barker, 364 Se 2d 264 (W Va 1987).
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
85025722946
-
-
Commonwealth v Jackson, 428 NE 2d 289 (Mass 1981).
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
85025720280
-
-
Moruant v Construction Aggregates Corporation, 570 F 2d 626, 629 (6th Cir 1978).
-
-
-
-
56
-
-
85025729576
-
-
Bartell v State, 351 SE 2d 495 (Ga App 1986).
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
85025729646
-
-
The Trial of Alfred Arthur Rouse; The Blazing Car Murder. xxxiii, Notable British Trials Series, 1931, Tremayne S (ed). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1931. Cited in: Munday R. Excluding the Expert Witness, 1989 Crim L Rev 688. In seeking to verify this statement, the only copy available to the author was The Trial of Alfred Arthur Rouse. Careful searching fails to reveal the exact quotation in so many words, but the theme is present.
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
85025729005
-
-
State v Pierce, 786 P 2d 1255 (Okla Cr App 1990).
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
85025715277
-
-
Fox v State, 779 P 2d 562 (Okla Cr App 1989).
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
85025715557
-
-
McCarty v State, 765 P 2d 1215 (Okla Cr App 1988).
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
85025741346
-
-
State v Pinero, 778 P 2d 704, 709 (Hawaii 1989).
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
85025727341
-
-
Milburn v Comm, 788 SW 2d 253 (Ky 1990).
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
85025719191
-
-
State v Whitman, 788 SW 2d 328 (Mo App 1990).
-
-
-
-
65
-
-
85025735116
-
-
Peterson JL. Use of Forensic Evidence by the Police and Courts. US Dept of Justice, Natl Inst Justice, October 1987; Peterson JL. Ethical Issues in the Collection, Examination and Use of Physical Evidence. In: Forensic Science, revised. Washington DC: American Chemical Society 1986: 35–48.
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
85025728199
-
-
Thornton J. Uses and Abuses of Forensic Science. 69 ABA J, 291, March 1983.
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
85025732641
-
-
Handbook of Forensic Science. US Dept of Justice, FBI, 1990: 101.
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
85025721449
-
-
Moriarty MF. Liberty, Justice … and Experts for All. VI. Law and Inequality 247, 251, July 1988.
-
-
-
-
69
-
-
85025736015
-
-
Ferrara PB. The Forensic Laboratory Manager's Responsibility to Quality Assurance. ASCLD News, Summer 1990
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
85025741647
-
-
People v Reilly, 196 Cal App 3d 1127, 242 Cal Rptr 496 (Ct App 1st 1987).
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
85025745535
-
-
People v Brown, 40 Cal 3d 512, 726 P 2d 516 (1985).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
85025743310
-
-
People v Kelly, 17 Cal 3d 24, 549 P 2d 1240 (1976); Frye v US F 1013 (DC Cir 1923).
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
85025719602
-
-
Reported in Fanselow. How to Bias an Eyewitness. Soc Act & L, May 1975: 3.
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
85025729663
-
-
Grossman. Suggestive Identifications: The Supreme Court's Due Process Test Fails to Meet Its Own Criteria. 11 U Balt Law Rev 53, 84 (19 ).
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
85025739737
-
-
Sawyer v State, 260 Ind 597, 298 NE 2d 440, 443 (1973).
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
85025734505
-
-
Hodge E. Guarding against Error. 20 AFTE J 290–293, July 1988.
-
-
-
-
79
-
-
85025735222
-
-
Letter from Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department dated 27 February, 1989.
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
85025718591
-
-
May, Rt Hon Sir John. Interim Report on the Maguire Case. London: HMSO, 12 July 1990.
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
85025742051
-
-
Attributed to Robert Kee, Washington Post, 11 August 1990, A15.
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
85025741862
-
-
Regina v Richardson et al. The Times. 20 October 1989 (Court appeal, Criminal Division).
-
-
-
-
84
-
-
85025728517
-
-
[80]. That appreciable amounts of NG are transferred by brief hand contact with cardiovascular tablets has been demonstrated. Lloyd JBF. Transfer of nitroglycerin from cardiovascular tablets to hands. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1983; 23: 307–311.
-
-
-
-
85
-
-
85025732035
-
-
US v Sizemore, 632 F 2d 8, 11 (6th Cir 1980).
-
-
-
-
86
-
-
85025725650
-
-
State v Thoe, 565 SW 2d 818 (Mo App 1978).
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
85025735921
-
-
Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol IV, chapter 27 (1765). “Better ten guilty escape than that one innocent man suffer”.
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
85025722166
-
-
A corruption of Croker, T Crofton. The legend of O’Donoghue. In: Yeats WB. Irish Fairy and Folk Tales, New York: The Modern Library, undated.
-
-
-
|