Posted: September 8th, 2023

Controversial Areas of Evidence Law: Proposed Reforms

Evidence Law Portfolio Assignment
For this assignment, you will submit a critical essay in which you:
1. Discuss controversial areas in evidence law;
2. Assess the specific Federal Rules of Evidence that are problematic within those controversial areas and then propose changes; and
3. Analyze the two cases you chose and analyzed in the Evidence Chart for your last week assignment.

Assignment Directions:
Some rules of evidence such as the Miranda warning are controversial, causing arguments over what would best serve the overall needs of society. Indeed, the introduction or preclusion of a single piece of evidence can result in a drastic change in the result of a case.
In your paper, address the following.
• Select four areas in evidence law where the rules are controversial.
• What are the controversial rules within each potentially problematic area? What language specifically makes the rule(s) controversial? How would you propose to improve this problematic area of evidence law? In your proposed suggestions for improvement, also include draft language for an improved rule.
• Research the history of the different areas you find troubling (for example: history of the use of expert witnesses in criminal court proceedings). Some areas you might consider:
• use of DNA evidence
• use of expert witnesses and the guidelines imposed for qualification as an expert
• child witnesses
• defendants’ rights at trial
• scientific evidence and reliability issues
• Miranda warnings
• Privileges
• exclusionary rule and exceptions
• mistaken identification
• warrantless searches
• surveillance
Note: You are not confined to this list. You may choose other topics and their applicable rules in evidence to evaluate. This list is simply offered as a starting point and does not provide you with the rules you must analyze.
Paper Instructions:
• Your paper should be 10 pages in length (not including the required title and references pages).
• Include discussion and citation of at least four credible sources other than (or in addition to) the course textbook. You can find these sources in the CSU-Global Library and in the special section there for Criminal Justice.
Format your document and source citations according to the APA writing guidelines.

Controversial Areas of Evidence Law: Proposed Reforms
Introduction
The rules of evidence aim to balance fairness and justice in legal proceedings. However, some rules remain controversial and problematic. This paper analyzes four such areas—expert witness qualifications, DNA evidence admissibility, child witness testimony, and Miranda warnings—assessing the specific rules and proposing reforms. For each area, recent cases and scholarly research are discussed. Reform draft language is suggested to improve problematic rules.
Expert Witness Qualifications
Rule 702 governs expert witness testimony admissibility (FRE, 2023). It requires the expert be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” and their testimony be based on “sufficient facts or data…reliable principles and methods…applied reliably.” However, determining expertise is subjective, leading to inconsistent rulings (Faigman et al., 2016). I propose adding objective criteria like licensure, certification, or minimum years of experience practicing the relevant field. For example, requiring psychologists testifying on mental states hold a current license. This provides a clear baseline for “qualification” and promotes uniform decisions.
DNA Evidence Admissibility

Rule 702 also applies to scientific evidence like DNA (FRE, 2023). However, reliability questions remain for new DNA techniques (Kaye, 2018). I propose a multi-factor reliability test examining error rates, peer review/publication, general acceptance, and ability to independently replicate (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993). Courts should hold pretrial hearings assessing each new technique’s validity and reliability before admitting results as evidence. This ensures only sound, proven science reaches juries, avoiding potential wrongful convictions from “junk science” (National Research Council, 2009).
Child Witness Testimony
Rules 801-804 address hearsay exceptions, including for child abuse victims (FRE, 2023). However, suggestibility concerns persist for very young children’s statements (Ceci & Bruck, 1995). I propose a minimum age requirement, like 8 years old, for uncorroborated hearsay used as substantive evidence. Younger children’s statements could still be admitted for other purposes with limiting instructions. Video recording all interviews also promotes transparency and prevents coercion allegations (State v. Michaels, 1994). Protecting the vulnerable while preserving due process requires balanced, evidence-based procedures.
Miranda Warnings

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established warnings informing suspects of their rights to silence and counsel during custodial interrogation. However, ambiguity remains over what constitutes a valid waiver (Fare v. Michael C., 1979). I propose a written waiver form signed by the suspect and two witnesses to eliminate disputes over oral waivers’ validity. Electronic recording all interrogations also prevents coercion claims and documents the voluntariness of any statements (State v. Scales, 2018). Transparency and clear procedures protect both law enforcement and suspects’ constitutional rights.
Conclusion
The rules of evidence aim to balance competing interests in our legal system. However, some areas remain controversial due to ambiguity or lack of consensus on scientific issues. This paper analyzed four such problematic rules and proposed objective, evidence-based reforms promoting uniformity and protecting due process. Clearer guidelines for expert testimony, reliability screening of new techniques, age requirements for hearsay, and documented waivers balance fairness and justice. Further research and discussion can refine these proposals to resolve contentious evidence law issues.
References
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10180-000
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/579
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/707
FRE. (2023). Federal rules of evidence. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Kaye, D. H. (2018). Forensic DNA evidence: Science, probability, and the law. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(4), 614-627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy030
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589
State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d 1372 (N.J. 1994). https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1994/642-a-2d-1372-1.html
State v. Scales, 518 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. 2017). https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/supreme-court/2017/e2014-00368-sc-r11-cd.html

_________________________
Exploring Controversies in Evidence Law: An In-depth Analysis and Proposed Reforms
By [Your Name]

Introduction

The realm of evidence law is a critical component of the legal system, serving as the linchpin in determining the outcome of legal cases. However, it is not devoid of controversy and debate. This essay delves into four contentious areas in evidence law, scrutinizes the specific Federal Rules of Evidence that pose challenges within these areas, and puts forth recommendations for reform. Additionally, it conducts a historical exploration of these areas, shedding light on their evolution over time.

Controversial Areas in Evidence Law

Evidence law encompasses various intricate facets, some of which have been subject to intense debate and disagreement. Four such contentious areas include:

Use of DNA Evidence
Expert Witnesses and Qualification Guidelines
Child Witnesses
Defendants’ Rights at Trial
Let’s explore each of these areas and the specific rules that have stirred controversy.

Controversy 1: Use of DNA Evidence
DNA evidence, while often hailed as a breakthrough in solving crimes, has raised concerns about its admissibility and potential for misuse. The primary rule that sparks controversy in this context is Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which deals with the qualifications of expert witnesses.

The Controversial Rule
Rule 702 states that expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data and must be the product of reliable principles and methods. However, critics argue that the interpretation of “reliable” varies, leading to inconsistent admission or exclusion of DNA evidence.

Proposed Reforms
To address this issue, a more precise definition of “reliable principles and methods” should be incorporated into the rule. This would include establishing standardized protocols for DNA analysis and ensuring that laboratories adhere to these protocols. A revised Rule 702 might read:

“Expert testimony based on DNA evidence must be derived from procedures and methods that have been scientifically validated and widely accepted within the relevant scientific community.”

Controversy 2: Expert Witnesses and Qualification Guidelines
The use of expert witnesses is fundamental to many legal proceedings, but the criteria for qualifying as an expert can be ambiguous.

The Controversial Rule
Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, has been criticized for not providing clear guidelines on the qualifications required to testify as an expert.

Proposed Reforms
A more precise definition of what constitutes an expert, along with standardized qualifications, could mitigate the controversy. A revised Rule 702 might state:

“An expert witness is an individual who possesses specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a specific field relevant to the subject matter of the case, and whose testimony is likely to assist the trier of fact.”

Controversy 3: Child Witnesses
The inclusion of child witnesses in trials raises concerns about their credibility, suggestibility, and the potential for undue influence.

The Controversial Rule
Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows leading questions on direct examination when dealing with child witnesses. Critics argue that this leniency can affect the accuracy of the testimony.

Proposed Reforms
To ensure the integrity of child witness testimony, Rule 611(c) should be amended to restrict leading questions during direct examination of child witnesses. A revised rule
____________________
Evaluating Controversial Areas in Evidence Law and Proposing Reforms

Introduction

Evidence law plays a pivotal role in ensuring justice is served in legal proceedings. However, it is not immune to controversy, as various rules and regulations within this legal framework can spark heated debates and pose challenges to achieving equitable outcomes. In this critical essay, we will delve into four contentious areas in evidence law, identify the specific rules that contribute to the controversy, and propose reforms for each area. Additionally, we will analyze two cases previously examined in the Evidence Chart assignment.

Controversial Areas in Evidence Law

Use of DNA Evidence

DNA evidence is a cornerstone of modern criminal investigations. However, its admissibility and handling in court proceedings have raised significant controversy. The debate often centers on issues related to the collection, preservation, and interpretation of DNA evidence.

Expert Witnesses and Qualification Standards

The use of expert witnesses is crucial in complex cases, but determining their qualifications can be contentious. The controversy primarily arises from vague standards and the subjectivity involved in evaluating an expert’s credentials.

Child Witnesses

The involvement of child witnesses in legal proceedings, especially in cases of abuse or trauma, poses unique challenges. Controversial issues include the reliability of child testimonies, the potential for coercion, and the need to balance the child’s rights with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial.

Exclusionary Rule and Exceptions

The exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of unlawfully obtained evidence in court, is a subject of ongoing debate. Controversy emerges in cases where exceptions to the rule are applied, leading to concerns about the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.

Assessment of Controversial Rules and Proposed Changes

DNA Evidence

Controversial Rule: The admissibility of DNA evidence can be hindered by issues related to the chain of custody and laboratory procedures. The lack of uniformity in protocols across jurisdictions contributes to controversy.

Proposed Improvement: To address this, a standardized protocol for DNA evidence collection, preservation, and analysis should be established. Draft Language: “All DNA evidence admitted in court must adhere to a standardized protocol approved by [relevant authority].”

Expert Witnesses and Qualification Standards

Controversial Rule: The subjective nature of evaluating expert qualifications leads to inconsistency and controversy.

Proposed Improvement: Implement clear and objective qualification criteria for expert witnesses, including a minimum threshold of relevant education and experience. Draft Language: “An expert witness shall be deemed qualified if they possess a minimum of [specific qualifications] in the field relevant to the case.”

Child Witnesses

Controversial Rule: Balancing the rights of child witnesses with the rights of the defendant is challenging. The rule’s language lacks clarity on how to address this balance.

Proposed Improvement: Establish a comprehensive guideline for handling child witnesses that ensures their protection while preserving the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Draft Language: “In cases involving child witnesses, the court shall ensure their testimony is obtained through methods that prioritize their emotional well-being without compromising the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

Exclusionary Rule and Exceptions

Controversial Rule: The application of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the “good faith” exception, raises concerns about potential Fourth Amendment violations.

Proposed Improvement: Narrow the scope of exceptions to the exclusionary rule and require a more rigorous showing of good faith. Draft Language: “The ‘good faith’ exception to the exclusionary rule shall only apply when law enforcement can demonstrate [stringent criteria for good faith].”

Historical Context

To better understand the controversies surrounding these areas of evidence law, it is essential to examine their historical development and evolution. For instance, the use of DNA evidence has transformed criminal investigations and led to numerous convictions being overturned. The history of expert witnesses reveals a gradual shift towards more stringent qualifications as the demand for specialized knowledge increased. Child witness testimonies have evolved with advancements in psychology and child advocacy, leading to greater consideration of the child’s well-being. The exclusionary rule’s history is marked by landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped its application and exceptions over the years.

Analysis of Cases

In our previous Evidence Chart assignment, we analyzed two cases that shed light on the complexities of evidence law:

Case A: Involving the admissibility of DNA evidence, this case highlighted the importance of clear and standardized protocols for collecting and preserving such evidence. The proposed reform to establish a standardized protocol aligns with the issues raised in this case.

Case B: In this case, the qualifications of an expert witness were challenged. The lack of clear qualification criteria contributed to the controversy. The proposed reform advocating for objective qualification criteria addresses the issues at the heart of this case.

Conclusion

Controversies within evidence law require thoughtful consideration and reform to ensure a fair and just legal system. By addressing problematic rules within areas like DNA evidence, expert witnesses, child witnesses, and the exclusionary rule, we can work towards a more equitable and reliable legal framework. Additionally, understanding the historical context and analyzing real cases allows us to grasp the practical implications of these controversies and the potential impact of proposed reforms. In this way, evidence law can continue to evolve and adapt to meet the ever-changing needs of society and the legal system.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: NRSG374:Principles of Nursing Palliative Approach Assessment »Discuss Christian theology