Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) provides that an item of evidence can be authenticated through
(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that
To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
Moreover,
Guest post by Jon Polenberg
Professor Miller was kind enough to invite me to share a few thoughts here, and I want to use the space to make an argument about Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 that I develop
It’s really rare that a court reverses a murder conviction based upon finding a confession to be involuntary. That makes the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in State v. Adkisson, 2026 WL 1542890 (Tenn. 2026), the
The Supreme Court has held that a criminal defendant “being tried by a jury is entitled to the uncoerced verdict of that body.” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 241 (1988). It’s rare for an appellate court to find
It is well established that judges wield the inherent power of the court. This was the power wielded in the Terrance Lewis case which we covered on Undisclosed. As I wrote in my article, Rectifying Wrongful Convictions Through the
On Undisclosed, we’ve covered a number of cases involving anonymous tips, and I’ve always lamented the lack of precedent on the issue of how to handle such tips at trial. Well, now we have a case that bucks that
California’s Racial Justice Act of 2020 states, inter alia, that
Existing precedent tolerates the use of racially incendiary or racially coded language, images, and racial stereotypes in criminal trials. For example, courts have upheld convictions in cases where prosecutors have
It is well established that prosecutors are not allowed to try to quantify the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during closing arguments. A prosecutor did just that in State v. Munguia-Hernandez, 2026 WL 1345991 (Mo.App. 2026), but
Kentucky Rule of Evidence 504(a) provides that
The spouse of a party has a privilege to refuse to testify against the party as to events occurring after the date of their marriage. A party has a privilege to prevent his
