Evidence

Print
Comment
Volume 92.8
From Quid Post Quo to Quid Pro Quo: Toward an Evidentiary Standard for 18 U.S.C. § 666 after Snyder
Luke Henkel
A.B. 2023, Georgetown University; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Sharon Fairley and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review—especially Andy Wang, Jack Brake, Kai Jaeger, Zoë Ewing, and Jackson Cole—for their thoughtful insights and assistance with the piece.

In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a federal criminal statute covers only bribes, not gratuities. The key issue in factually similar cases is whether a quid pro quo agreement occurred. The Snyder Court provided no guidance on this issue. This Comment responds by turning to antitrust law. Antitrust faces the same problem as bribery law: determining whether an illegal agreement occurred when both parties benefit from it. Antitrust has developed several “plus factors” to explain what circumstantial evidence suffices to prove an illegal agreement. This Comment uses that antitrust framework to propose ten bribery plus factors.

Antitrust Evidence White Collar
Online
Essay
A Critical Eye Toward Commercial DNA Database Criminal Procedures
Laura Geary
Laura Geary is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2023.

She thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.

After the Golden State Killer was arrested and sentenced in 2018, interest in investigative genetic genealogy spiked.

Evidence
Online
Essay
The Admissibility of Forensic Reports in the Post–Justice Scalia Supreme Court
Laird Kirkpatrick
Laird Kirkpatrick is the Louis Harkey Mayo Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught evidence and evidence related courses for more than twenty five years.

Forensic reports linking a defendant to a crime—such as drug tests, blood analysis, DNA profiles, and much more—often constitute the most powerful and persuasive evidence that can be offered at a criminal trial.

Evidence
2
Book review
76.2
Reasonable Doubt and the History of the Criminal Trial
Thomas P. Gallanis
N. William Hines Professor of Law, University of Iowa

The research for and writing of this Review was done during my time as Julius E. Davis Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Mason Ladd Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Iowa. It is a pleasure to thank the University of Minnesota Law School and Law Library and the University of Iowa College of Law and Law Library for excellent research support. It is also a pleasure to thank Daniel Klerman and Robert Levy for comments on a draft of this Review.

Criminal Law Evidence Legal History
2
Book review
79.2
Combating Contamination in Confession Cases
Laura H. Nirider
Adjunct Professor, Northwestern University School of Law; Project Co-Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law
Joshua A. Tepfer
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Project Co-Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law
Steven A. Drizin
Clinical Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Legal Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions; Cofounder, Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth; Associate Director, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law

The authors coteach a clinical course on wrongful convictions of youth and have worked together as cocounsel on numerous cases of false and contaminated confessions.

Criminal Law Empirical Analysis Evidence

Volumes