Search

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as "THE" Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federa Rule of Evidence 615, the Rule that provides sequestration protection in federal court. In some circuits, the Rule is narrowly construed in accordance with its plain language to prohibit witnesses only from remaining physically present in the courtroom during testimony. Under this view, the Rule offers no protection against testimonial tailoring outside the courtroom. Yet, remaining physically present during the testimony of other witnesses is not the only means by which a prospective witness might adapt her testimony to match that of other witnesses. Although extra-tribunal witness coordination has always been possible, the explosion in technology and the recent specter of COVID-19 have multiplied exponentially options for testimonial tailoring beyond the courtroom doors. For this reason, some circuits construe terse "Rule 615" orders broadly to prohibit witness collaboration and access to testimony beyond the trial setting. Although these circuits afford the full complement of sequestration protection, their expansive construction of succinct "Rule 615" orders generates fairness concerns about inadequate notice of proscribed witness behavior. This Article details the competing interpretations of Rule 615 orders adopted by the federal courts and examines the merits and demerits of each approach. It further elucidates the philosophical divide reflected in the circuit split, exposing the textualist and purposive theories of rule construction animating the opposing views. The Article ultimately proposes detailed alternatives for revising Rule 615, offering draft language that could be adopted to memorialize either of the federal approaches to witness sequestration in amended rule text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the conflict between the temporarily unavailable juror and the mandatory 24-hour limit on the separation of jurors in New York State during deliberations. It also discusses the historical origins of jury sequestration. New York law required juries in 1995 to be sequestered from the time they started deliberations until they reached a verdict. The mandatory sequestration rule was relaxed with the enactment of Criminal Procedure Law Section 310.10(2).

Objectives: To assess the ability of prenatal ultrasound (US) in identifying systemic feeding arteries in bronchopulmonary sequestrations and hybrid lesions and report the ability of US in classifying bronchopulmonary sequestrations as intralobar or extralobar. Methods: Institutional Review Board–approved radiology and clinical database searches from 2008 to 2015 were performed for prenatal lung lesions with final diagnoses of bronchopulmonary sequestrations or hybrid lesions. All patients had detailed US examinations, and most patients had ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Lesion location, size, and identification of systemic feeding arteries and draining veins were assessed with US. Results: The study consisted of 102 bronchopulmonary sequestrations and 86 hybrid lesions. The median maternal age was 30 years. The median gestational age was 22 weeks 5 days. Of bronchopulmonary sequestrations, 66 had surgical pathologic confirmation, and 100 had postnatal imaging. Bronchopulmonary sequestration locations were intrathoracic (n = 77), intra‐abdominal (n = 19), and transdiaphragmatic (n = 6). Of hybrid lesions, 84 had surgical pathologic confirmation, and 83 had postnatal imaging. Hybrid lesion locations were intrathoracic (n = 84) and transdiaphragmatic (n = 2). Ultrasound correctly identified systemic feeding arteries in 86 of 102 bronchopulmonary sequestrations and 79 of 86 hybrid lesions. Of patients who underwent MRI, systemic feeding arteries were reported in 62 of 92 bronchopulmonary sequestrations and 56 of 81 hybrid lesions. Ultrasound identified more systemic feeding arteries than MRI in both bronchopulmonary sequestrations and hybrid lesions (P < .01). Magnetic resonance imaging identified systemic feeding arteries that US did not in only 2 cases. In cases in which both systemic feeding arteries and draining veins were identified, US could correctly predict intrathoracic lesions as intralobar or extralobar in 44 of 49 bronchopulmonary sequestrations and 68 of 73 hybrid lesions. Conclusions: Ultrasound is most accurate for systemic feeding artery detection in bronchopulmonary sequestrations and hybrid lesions and can also type the lesions as intralobar or extralobar when draining veins are evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research on pretrial publicity has produced mixed results and a roughly equal number of studies show an effect, show no effect, or show mixed results. We explored the effects of (a) homogenous vs. heterogeneous exposure (whether deliberating jurors were all exposed to the same publicity or not) and (b) pre-deliberation queries as potential contributors to mixed results. We found an effect for positive but not negative publicity on conviction rates but not evidence ratings. Exposure heterogeneity appears to explain these differences and pre-deliberation queries did appear to play some role in the obtained outcomes. Overall these findings do not replicate a robust publicity effect and future research should consider how homogeneous exposure and pre-deliberation opinion queries influence results. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]