THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305
Go to Volume 18 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 305 Table of Contents

Research Notes

    305.5.1 Embezzlement
    305.5.2 Empirical Research
    305.5.3 Enhancements
    305.5.4 Entrapment
    305.5.5 Epilepsy
    305.5.6 Equitable Estoppel
    305.5.7 Escape
    305.5.8 Expert Testimony/Scientific Evidence
    305.5.9 Extortion

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Defending Bank and Thrift Directors and Professionals: 1995 Banking Crimes: Fraud, Money Laundering, and Embezzlement, Practising Law Institute, PLI Order No. H4-5223 October, 1995, John K. Villa 532 PLI/Lit 261.

Financial Services Litigation Banking Crimes: Fraud, Money Laundering and Embezzlement, Practising Law Institute, PLI Order No. B4-7153 April, 1996, John K. Villa 935 PLI/Corp 445.

Michigan's Embezzlement by Public Officer Statute: a Judicially Created Strict Liability Standard Too Unfettered for Government Prosecutors, 72 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 615, Spring 1995, Patrick M. Edwards.

Pleading for Theft Consolidation in Virginia: Larceny, Embezzlement, False Pretenses and §§ 19.2-284, 56 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 249, Winter, 1999, John Wesley Bartram.

When Statute of Limitations Begins to Run Against Criminal Prosecution for Embezzlement, Fraud, False Pretenses, or Similar crimes, 77 ALR3d 689.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? P.M. Tiersma, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 1-49, 1995.

Do Jurors Follow Instructions? An Experiment Using the Randomized Response Technique to Determine Whether Jurors Obey the Instruction Not the Discuss Their Case Before Deliberations (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion] Loftus, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 359, Summer 1987.

Do Jurors Understand Criminal Jury Instructions? Analyzing the Results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project, Kramer and Koenig, 23 U. Mich. J. Legal Reform 401, Spring 1990.

The Empirical, Historical and Legal Case Against the Cautionary Instruction: A Call for Legislative Reform, Morris, 1988 Duke L.J. 154, February 1988.

Experiments in the Second Circuit with Techniques for Aiding Juror Comprehension, Sand, (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 325, Summer 1987.

How Well Do Jurors Understand Jury Instructions? A Field Test Using Real Juries And Real Trials In Wyoming, Saxon, 33 Land & Water L. Rev. 59 (1998).

Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal Explanation Does Not Help, K.L. Pickel, 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 407-24 Aug. '95.

Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment with Written and Preliminary Instructions, Heuer and Penrod, 13 L. and Human Behavior 409, Dec. 1989.

"The Jury Will Disregard. . ." But New Study Suggests That By Then It's Too Late [ABA Foundation research on whether jurors follow judge's admonition to disregard certain evidence, includes related article], Marcotte, 73 ABA J. 34, Nov. 1, 1987.

Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.

Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions Following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions, Tanford, 25 L. & Society Rev. 155, Feb. 1991.

The Legal System's Assumptions Versus the Psychological Realities of Jury Functioning: How Changes in Judicial Instructions Might Improve Jury Decision-Making (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) Wrightsman, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 359, Summer 1987.

Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, Charrow and Charrow, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.

Necessity and sufficiency of cautionary instructions, in prosecution for rape, as to evidence of other similar offense, 77 ALR2d 906.

Similar Fact Evidence and Limited Use Instructions: An Empirical Investigation [Canada], Schaefer and Hansen, 14 Crim.L.J. 157, June 1990.

Thinking About Elephants: Admonitions, Empirical Research and Legal Policy, Tanford, 60 UMKC L.Rev. 645, Summer 1992.

The University of Washington Juror Instruction Project: Some Research Conclusions (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Greene, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 291, Summer 1987.

What Social Science Teaches Us About The Jury Instruction Process, Joel D. Lieberman and Bruce D. Sales, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 589, December, 1997.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Chronological or Procedural Sequence of Former Convictions as Affecting Enhancement of Penalty under Habitual Offender Statutes, 7 ALR5th 263.

Fact That Gun Was Broken, Dismantled, or Inoperable as Affecting Criminal Responsibility under Weapons Statute, 81 Alr4th 745.

Fact That Gun Was Unloaded as Affecting Criminal Responsibility, 68 ALR4th 507.

"Regarding Troy: Will The Real Abusers Please Stand Up," 24 UWLA LR 379.

What Amounts to "Control" under State Statute Making it Illegal for Felon to Have Possession or Control of Firearm or Other Dangerous Weapon, 66 ALR4th 1240.

With The Intent To Inflict Such Injury: The Courts And The Legislature Create Confusion In California Penal Code Section 12022.7, 28 San Diego LR 963.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

The Act Requirement and the Foundation of the Entrapment Defense, Carlsen, 73 Va L.Rev. 1011, (1987).

Adequacy of Defense Counsel's Representation of Criminal Client Regarding Entrapment Defense, 8 ALR4th 1160.

Admissibility of Evidence of Other Offenses in Rebuttal of Defense of Entrapment, 61 ALR3d 293.

Availability in State Court of Defense of Entrapment Where Accused Denies Committing Acts Which Constitute Offense Charged, 5 ALR4th 1128.

Availability of Defense of Entrapment Where Accused Denies Participating at All in Offense, 61 ALR2d 677.

Availability in federal court of defense of entrapment where accused denies committing acts which constitute offense charged, 54 A.L.R. Fed. 644, supp sec. 3.

Bad Advice: The Entrapment By Estoppel Doctrine in Criminal Law. S. Connelly, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 627 48 Jan. 1994.

Burden of Proof as to Entrapment Defense--state Cases, 52 ALR4th 775.

Caught in the Web: Entrapment in Cyberspace [Child Sexual Abuse] J. Gregg. 19 Hastings Comm. & Ent. 157-97 Fall 1996.

Comment, Causation and "Objective" Entrapment: Toward a Culpability-Centered Approach, Lonbardo, 43 UCLA L.Rev. 209 (1995).

Criminal Procedure-- Entrapment-- Defendant Has Been Entrapped as a Matter of Law When the Government's Protracted and Insistent Efforts Create in Defendant a Predisposition to Engage in Unlawful Conduct-- Jacobson v. United States, Rhodes 112 SCt 1535 (1992) 23 Seton Hall L.Rev. 728 (1993).

Note: Denying the Crime and Pleading Entrapment: Putting the Federal Law in Order, 20 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 567 (1987).

The Development of Entrapment Law, Marcus (1986) 33 Wayne L.Rev. 5.

Entrapment and Denial of the Crime: a Defense of the Inconsistency Rule, 1986 Duke L.J. 866 (1986).

Entrapment as Defense to Charge of Selling or Supplying Narcotics Where Government Agents Supplied Narcotics to Defendant and Purchased Them from Him, 9 ALR5th 464.

Entrapment Defense in Sex Offense Prosecutions, 12 ALR4th 413.

From Sorrells to Jacobson: Reflections on Six Decades of Entrapment Law and Related Defenses in Federal Court, Bennett, 27 Wake Forest L.Rev. 829 (1992).

The Government as Pornographer: Government Sting Operations and Entrapment: United States v. Jacobson 916 F2d 467 (8th Cir. 1990), rev'd, 112 SCt 1535 (1992) Harrison, 61 UCin L.Rev. 1067 (1993).

Instructing on Burden of Proof as to Defense of Entrapment in Federal Criminal Case, 28 ALR Fed 767.

Case Comment: Mathews v. United States: Simultaneous Denial of Crime and Claim of Entrapment -- Should Inconsistency Preclude Availability of the Entrapment Defense?, 23 Ga. L. Rev. 257 (1988).

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense--federal Cases, 22 ALR Fed. 731.

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense--state Cases, 62 ALR3d 110.

The New Sentencing Entrapment and Sentencing Manipulation Defenses, Guerra, 7 Fed. Sent. Rptr. 181, (1995).

Presenting, Back From the [Almost] Dead, The Entrapment Defense, Marcus, 47 FLA L.Rev. 205 (1995).

Propriety and prejudicial effect in federal criminal case of instruction distinguishing lawful and unlawful entrapment, 39 ALR Fed 751.

Proving Entrapment Under the Predisposition Test, Marcus, (1987) 14 Am J Crim L 53.

Sentencing Manipulation and Entrapment as Defenses, Boss & Rosenberg, The Champion, July 1995, at p. 38.

What Conduct of Federal Law Enforcement Authorities in Inducing or Co-operating in Criminal Offense Raises Due Process Defense Distinct from Entrapment, 97 ALR Fed. 273.

Devitt, . Federal Practice and Instructions (1992 Ed.) § 19.04.

LaFave & Scott Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 5.2.

LaFave & Scott Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 5.2(e)(3).

Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (1999 Pocket Part) § 209.

Wharton’s Criminal Law (West 15th Ed. 1993) § 53.

Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (15th Ed. 1997) § 2:18.

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense–Federal Cases, 22 ALR Fed. 731.

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense -- State Cases, 62 ALR3d 110.

"The Epilepsy Defense Reconsidered," Irma Jacqueline Ozer, Criminal Law Bulletin, Volume 33, Number 4, July-August 1997, pp. 328-351.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

"Official Statement," Mistake of Law Defense, 89 A.L.R.4th 1026

Reliance on an Official Interpretation of the Law: The Defense's Appropriate Dimensions, Billimack, 1993 U. Ill. L. Rev. 565, 587-88

Texts:

Cissell, Federal Criminal Trials, (4th Ed. 1996) § 10-4.

Gurule, Complex Criminal Litigation, (1996) (Lexis) § 14-4.

Leventhal, Charges to Jury Crim (1997) Case § 5:13.

Wharton’s Criminal Law (15th Ed., 1993) § 74.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Arrest as the Prerequisite to Escape: an Analysis of State V. Sanchez, 27 Ariz. L. Rev. 881, 1985, Jessica Franken.

Criminal Law -- Escape -- Denial of Counsel at Original Trial Is a Defense to Escape, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 847, February 1966.

Escape: a Deadly Proposition? Prisoners and Pretrial Detainees, 21 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 203, Winter 1995, Padraic P. Lyndon.

Offenses Against Public Administration: Increase the Possible Sentences for Prison Escape, 11 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 122, October, 1994, Cynthia F. Zebrowitz.

Texts:

Wharton’s Criminal Law (West, 15th ed. 1998 Supp.) § 633 fn. 2 ¶ 30.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Admissibility and Weight, in Criminal Case, of Expert or Scientific Evidence Respecting Characteristics and Identification of Human Hair, 23 ALR4th 1199.

Admissibility, in Criminal Case, of Statistical or Mathematical Evidence Offered for Purpose of Showing Probabilities, 36 ALR3d 1194.

Admissibility, in Criminal Cases, of Evidence of Electrophoresis of Dried Evidentiary Bloodstains, 66 ALR4th 588.

Admissibility, in Criminal Prosecution, of Expert Opinion Allegedly Stating Whether Drugs Were Possessed with Intent to Distribute–State Cases, 83 ALR4th 629.

Admissibility, in Criminal Prosecution, of Expert Opinion Evidence as to "Blood Splatter" Interpretation, 9 ALR5th 369.

Admissibility, in Homicide Prosecution, of Opinion Evidence That Death Was or Was Not Self-inflicted, 56 ALR2d 1447.

Admissibility of Expert Medical Testimony on Battered Child Syndrome, 98 ALR3d 306.

Admissibility of Expert Testimony as to Appropriate Punishment for Convicted Defendant, 47 ALR4th 1069.

Admissibility of Expert Testimony as to Criminal Defendant's Propensity Toward Sexual Deviation, 42 ALR4th 937.

Admissibility of Expert Testimony as to Whether Accused Had Specific Intent Necessary for Conviction, 16 ALR4th 666.

Comment, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Brainwashing-Related Cases— Should Witnesses be Fryed?, 32 Santa Clara L.Rev. 607-647 (1992).

The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.: The Neglected Issue of the Validity of Nonscientific Reasoning by Scientific Witnesses, Edward J. Inwinkelried, 70 Denv. U. L.Rev. 473-495 (1993).

Note, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony Regarding "Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome", 38 S.D. L.Rev. 189-202 (1993).

Admissibility of Testimony of Expert, as to Basis of His Opinion, to Matters Otherwise Excludible as Hearsay–State Cases, 89 ALR4th 456.

Admissibility, Weight, and Sufficiency of Blood-grouping Tests in Criminal Cases, 2 ALR4th 500.

After the DNA Wars: A Mopping Up Operation, Richard Lempert, 31 Israel L.Rev. 536 (1997).

Appropriate Use of Scientific Literature at Trial in New York and Other Jurisdictions: Is "Authoritative" a Magic Word?, Kitsch, 61 Alb. L.Rev. 181 (1997).

Note, Argue with Science? The Admissibility Debate Surrounding DNA Identification, 7 St. John's J. Legal Comment 597-626 (1992).

The Assessment of Expertise: Transcending Construction, Randolph N. Jonakait, 37 Santa Clara L.Rev. 301 (1997).

Bad Science: Repressed and Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse, Douglas R. Richmond, 44 U. Kan. L.Rev. 517 (1996).

The Battered Woman Syndrome in the Age of Science, David L. Faigman & Amy J. Wright, 39 Ariz. L.Rev. 67 (1997).

Blinded by Science: How Judges Avoid the Science in Scientific Evidence, Erica Beecher-Monas, 71 Temp. L.Rev. 55-102 (1998).

Brave New World, Alex Kozinski, 30 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 997-1011 (1997).

Breast Implants Revisited: Beyond Science on Trial, Rebecca S. Dresser, Wendy E. Wagner & Paul C. Gianelli, 1997 Wis. L.Rev. 705 (1997).

Note, The Circuit Courts' Application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Ruth Saunders, 46 Drake L.Rev. 407-423 (1997).

Clinical Markers Establishing A Causal Relationship Between Birth-Asphyxia and Cerebral Palsy: A Primer for Trial Lawyers, Dov Apfel, 32 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 1 (1997).

Colloquy on Expert Testimony, NW. U. L.Rev. 1131-1187 (1993).

Coming to Grips with Scientific Research in Daubert's "Brave New World": The Courts' Need to Appreciate the Evidentiary Differences Between Validity and Proficiency Studies, Edward J. Imwinkelried, 61 Brook. L.Rev. 1247 (1995).

Co-Witness Information Can Have Immediate Effects on Eyewitness Memory Reports, John S. Shaw, III, Sean Garven & James M. Wood, 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 503 (1997).

Comment, Curing the Ake of an Incompetent Expert: A Separate Reviewable Issue?, 29 San Diego L.Rev. 799-827 (1992).

The Daubert Handbook: The Case, Its Essential Dilemma, and Its Progeny, Michael G. Fenner, 29 Creighton L.Rev. 939 (1996).

The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion Michael Saks with Risinger, Rosenthal & Thompson, 90 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 1 (2002).

Daubert: Worldwide Judicial Management of Humanity's Specialized Knowledge, Marc S. Klein, 30 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 1229-1247 (1997).

Daubert's Wake: Judicial Response to Renewed Requests for the Introduction of Polygraph Evidence, Herbert N. Ramy, 4 MSL L.Rev. 43-59 (1996-1997).

Note, Epidemiological Evidence May Be Used to Establish Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation Provided that the Applicable Standards of Admissibility Are Met, 24 Seton Hall L.Rev. 447-482 (1993).

DNA Evidence, Christine Salmon, 1997 Crim. L.Rev. 669 (1997).

DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials: A Defense Attorney's Primer, Richard A. Nakashima, 74 Neb. L.Rev. 444 (1995).

Note, DNA Fingerprinting: The Definitive Evidence in a Criminal Trial, 22 Mem. St. U. L.Rev. 319 (1992).

The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Science, Brian Leiter, 1997 B.Y.U. L.Rev. 803 (1997)

Evaluating and Admitting Expert Opinion Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, Diana Younts, 11 Duke L.J. 691 (1991).

Evidence, Science and Logic, Mike Redmayne, 59 Mod. L.Rev. 747 (1996).

Evidence: The Usage of Hypnotically Enhanced Testimony Against Criminal Defendants, Joshua M. Dickey, 28 Pac. L.J. 824 (1997).

Exculpatory Polygraphs in the Courtroom: How the Truth May Not Set You Free, Lloyd C. Peeples, III, Stephen P. Bell, Jr. & T. Michael Guiffre, 28 Cumb. L.Rev. 77-115 (1997-1998).

Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification Expertise, D. Michael Risinger, Mark Denbeaux and Michael J. Saks,137 U.Pa. L.Rev. 731 (1989).

Expert and opinion evidence as to cause or origin of fire, 88 ALR2d 230.

Expert Evidence, 16 Law & Hum. Behav. 253-379 (1992).

Expert Evidence and Scientific Disagreement, Mike Redmayne, 30 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 1027-1080 (1997).

Experts on Eyewitness Testimony in Court— A Short Historical Perspective, Robert J. Hallisey, 39 How. L. J. 237 (1995).

Expert Testimony About Eyewitness Identification: A Critique, Rogers Elliot, 17 Law & Hum. Behavior 423-437 (1993).

Expert Testimony and the Confrontation Clause, Giannelli, 22 Cap.U. L.Rev. 45-84 (1993).

Expert Testimony in Design Defect Cases, William J. Brown, J., 37 Jurimetrics 285 (1997).

Expert Testimony in Technically Complex Litigation, Stanley Pierce et al., 10 Def. L.J. 697 (1991).

Expert Witness Testimony and the Diminished Capacity Defense, Jennifer K. Compton, 20 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 381 (1997).

Footprints as evidence, 35 ALR2d 856.

Forensic DNA Profiling: The Importance of Giving Accurate Answers to the Right Questions (Reviewing National Research Council, the Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence), Geoffrey K. Chambers, et al., 8 Crim. L.F. 445-459 (1997).

http://www.forensic-evidence.com.  A site with many articles on evidence in law news, as well as identification evidence, behavior evidence, biological evidence and police procedures.

Forensic Hair Comparison Analysis: Nineteenth Century Science or Twentieth Century Snake Oil?, Clive Stafford Smith and Patrick D. Goodman, 27 Colum. Hum. Rts. L.Rev. 227 (1996).

Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of Daubert, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 141 (1997).

Forensic Science: Chain of Custody. P. Giannelli, Crim. L. Bull. 447-65 Sept.- Oct. 1996.

From Fear to Rage: Black Rage as a Natural Progression from and Functional Equivalent of Battered Woman Syndrome, Tosha Evette Foster, 38 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 1851 (1997).

From the Couch to the Bench: How Should the Legal System Respond to Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse?, Wendy J. Kitsch, 5 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 207 (1996).

Handwriting Identification Evidence in the Post-Daubert World, Andre A. Moenssens, 66 UMKC L.Rev. 251-343 (1997).

The Hazards of Using the "Battered Child Syndrome" As Evidence of Self-Defense When Children Kill In Non-Confrontational Situations. L.Z. Houfek, 16 J. Juv. L. 91-114 1995.

"Helpful" or "Reasonably Reliable"? Analyzing the Expert Witness's Methodology Under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, Michael C. McCarthy, 77 Cornell L.Rev. 350 (1992).

Human Factors Experts in Personal Injury Litigation, Douglas Richmond, 46 Ark. L.Rev. 333-369 (1993).

It's Not Bad Law--It's Bad Science: Problems With Expert Testimony in Trial Proceedings, J.P. Thames, 18 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 545-63 Spring 1995.

Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts by Kennether R. Foster & Peter W. Huber, Brent S. Mitchell, 11 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 269 (1997).

Judicial Scrutiny of Expert Testimony in Environmental Tort Litigation, Golanski 9 Pace Envtl. L.Rev. 399-474 (1992).

Juror Assessments of the Believability of Expert Witnesses: A Literature Review, Daniel W. Shuman, Anthony Champagne, and Elizabeth Whittaker, 36 Jurimetrics J. 383 (1996).

A Laboratory Error Seen Through the Lens of Science and Policy, Margaret A. Berger, 30 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 1081-1111 (1997).

Comment, Liars, Damn Liars, and Expert Witnesses: Unhelpful Approaches to Unreliable Scientific Testimony in the Third and Fifth Circuits, 29 Hous. L.Rev. 1029-1058 (1992).

"Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence in the Courtroom after Daubert, Krista L. Duncan, 71 Ind. L.J. 753 (1996).

Note, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence in the Courtroom After Daubert, 69 S. Cal. L.Rev. 855 (1996).

Linking Genes with Behavior: The Social and Legal Implications of Using Genetic Evidence in Criminal Trials, Carol A. Gaudet, 24 Ford. Urb. L. J. 597 (1997).

Making the Law Safe for Science: A Proposed Rule for the Admission of Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, 35 Washburn L.J. 401 (1996).

Medical Evidence of Physical Abuse in Infants and Young Children, Thomas D. Lyon, Elizabeth E. Gilles & Larry Cory, 28 Pac. L.J. 93 (1996).

Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law's Formative Encounters with Forensic Identification Science, Michael Saks, 49 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 1069 (1998).

Misconceptions and Reevaluation— Polygraph Admissibility after Rock and Daubert, James R. McCall, 1996 U. Ill. L.Rev. 363 (1996).

Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science of Expert Testimony Michael Saks with D. Faigman, D. Kaye and J. Sanders (2d ed., West Group 2002).

Note, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Does Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Warrant Another Look at Clinical Ecology?, Suzanne Orofino Galbato, 48 Syracuse L.Rev. 261-298 (1998).

Necessity and Admissibility of Expert Testimony as to Credibility of Witness, 20 ALR3d 684.

Necessity and Effect, in Homicide Prosecution, of Expert Medical Testimony as to Cause of Death, 65 ALR3d 283.

Odontology: Bite Marks as Evidence in Criminal Trials, Michelle McClure, 11 Computer & Hightech L.J. 269 (1995).

Note, Opening the Gates to Scientific Evidence in Toxic Exposure Cases: Medical Monitoring and Daubert, Patricia E. Lin, 17 Rev. Litig. 551-588 (1998).

The Polygraph in 1995: Progress in Science and the Law, Charles R. Honts and Bruce D. Quick, 71 N.D. L.Rev. 987 (1995).

Propriety of Hypothetical Question to Expert Witness on Cross-examination, 71 ALR2d 6.

Protecting Criminal Defendants' Rights When the Government Adduces Scientific Evidence: The Confrontation Clause and Other Alternatives— A Response to Professor Giannelli, James W. Diehm, 22 Cap. U. L.Rev. 85-102 (1993).

Psychiatric Neuroimaging Evidence: A High-Tech Crystal Ball?, Jennifer Kulynych, 49 Stan. L.Rev. 1249 (1997).

Rape Trauma Syndrome: Toward Proper Use in the Criminal Trial Context, Kenneth W. Gaines, 20 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 227 (1997).

Recent Development Evidence— Admissibility of Polygraph Tests, Scott C. Best, 21 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 407-411 (1997).

Comment, The Repressed Memory Phenomenon: Are Recovered Memories Scientifically Valid Evidence under Daubert ?, Cynthia V. McAlister, 22 N.C. Cent. L.J. 56 (1996).

Right of Accused in State Courts to Have Expert Inspect, Examine, or Test Physical Evidence in Possession of Prosecution--modern Cases, 27 ALR4th 1188.

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Ballistics Experts, 71 ALR4th 638).

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Chemist, Toxicologist, Technician, Narcotics Expert, or Similar Nonmedical Specialist in Substance Analysis, 74 ALR4th 388.

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Expert in Social Attitudes, 74 ALR4th 330.

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Fingerprint Expert, 72 ALR4th 874.

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Investigators, 81 ALR4th 259.

Right of Indigent Defendant in State Criminal Case to Assistance of Psychiatrist or Psychologist, 85 ALR4th 19.

The "Same Intellectual Rigor" Test Provides an Effective Method for Determining the Reliability of All Expert Testimony, Without Regard to Whether the Testimony, Comprises "Scientific Knowledge " or "Technical or Other Specialized Knowledge," J. Brook Lathram, 28 U. Mem. L.Rev. 1053-1075 (1998).

Science and Civil Justice, Gina Kolota, 41 N.Y.L. Sch. L.Rev. 409 (1997).

Science and Law: The Quest for the Neutral Expert Witness. A View from the Trenches, Carl B. Meyer, 12 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 35 (1997).

The Science of Gatekeeping: The Federal Judicial Center's New Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, John M. Conley and David W. Peterson, 74 N.C.L.Rev. 1183 (1996).

Scientific Evidence, Causation and the Law -Lessons of Bendectin (Debendox) Litigation, Richard S. Goldberg, 4 Med. L.Rev. 32 (1996).

Selection, Use and Management of Experts in Environmental Legal Practice, J. Berton Fisher & William R. Keffer, 33 Tulsa L.J. 1003-1017 (1998).

Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children, R.C.L. Lindsey, Joanna D. Pozzulo, Wendy Craig, Kang Lee & Samantha Corber, 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 391 (1997).

A Sociological Perspective on the Science of Forensic DNA Testing, William C. Thompson, 30 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 1113-1136 (1997).

Supporting a Defense of Duress: The Admissibility of Battered Woman Syndrome, Kelly Grace Monacelia, 70 Temp. L.Rev. 699 (1997).

Note, A Test Both Lawyers and Scientists Can Live With: The Rigorous Five-Prong Test for the Admission of DNA Profiling Evidence, 71 Neb. L.Rev. 920-936 (1992).

Thomas S. Kuhn and Courtroom Treatment of Science Evidence, Edward Cheng, 15 Temp Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 195 (1996).

The Use of Experts in Environmental Litigation: A Practitioner's Guide, Kim K. Burke, 25 N. Ky. L.Rev. 111- 139 (1997).

Note, The Weight Versus Admissibility Dilemma: Daubert's Applicability to a Method or Procedure in a Particular Case, Shelley Storer, 1998 U. Ill. L.Rev. 231-252 (1998).

Note, When Other Evidence Contradicts the Expert Testimony Admissibility or Credibility, 38 S.D. L.Rev. 763-782 (1992-1993).

Note, Who Can Speak For Our Children? Qualifications of Experts in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse, 12 Miss. C. L. Rev. 493 (1992).

"Yer Outta Here!" A Framework for Analyzing the Potential Exclusion of Expert Testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton, 32 U. Rich. L.Rev. 1-62 (1998).

After Daubert: Discerning the Increasingly Fine Line Between the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Expert Testimony in Antitrust, Andrew I. Gavil, 65 Antitrust L. J. 633 (1997).

An Autopsy of Scientific Evidence in a Post-Daubert World, Jay P. Kesan, 84 Geo. L. J. 1985 (1996).

The "Brave New World" of Daubert: True Peer Review, Editorial Peer Review, and Scientific Validity, Effie J. Chan, 70 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 100 ( 1995).

The Case Against Evidentiary Admissibility Standards That Attempt to "Freeze" the State of a Scientific Technique, Edward J. Imwinkelried, 67 U. Colo. L.Rev. 887 (1996).

Congressional Action to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702: A Mischievous Attempt to Codify Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nancy S. Farrell, 13 J. Contemp. Health L. & Policy 523 (1997).

The Courts, Daubert and Environmental Torts: Gatekeepers or Auditors?, Anthony Z. Zoisman, 14 Pace Envtl. L.Rev. 545 (1997).

The Courts, Daubert and Willingness-to-Pay: The Doubtful Future of Hedonic Damages Testimony Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Joseph A. Kuiper, 1996 U. Ill. L.Rev. 1197 (1996).

Daubert and the Reference, Manual: An Essay on the Future of Science in Law, Laurens Walker and John Monahan, 82 Va. L.Rev. 837 (1996).

Daubert and the Quest for Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" in the Courtroom, Alexander M. Capron, 30 U. Rich. L.Rev. 85 (1996).

DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson Trial, William C. Thompson, 67 U. Colo. L.Rev. 827 (1996).

Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science Evidence, Teresa S. Renaker, 84 Cal. L.Rev. 1657 (1996).

Fixed v. Flexible Neuropsychological Test Batteries under the Daubert Standard for the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence, Joe E. Reed, 14 Behavioral Sci. & Law 269 (1996).

Frye's General Acceptance Test v. Daubert's Empirical Validation Standard— "Either. . . Or" or "Both . . . . . .And"? Edward J. Imwinkelried, 33 Crim. L. Bull. 72 (1997).

Comment, Implications of Strict Scrutiny of Scientific Evidence: Does Daubert Deal a Death Blow to Toxic Tort Plaintiffs?, Jeffrey D. Cutler, 10 J. Envt'l. L. Litig. 189 (1995).

Inconsistent Gatekeeping in Federal Courts: Application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Nonscientific Expert Testimony, Jennifer Laser, 30 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. 1379 (1997).

Keeping "Junk" History, Philosophy and Sociology Science out of the Courtroom: Problems with the Reception of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gary Edmond & David Mercer, 20 U.N.S.W. L. J. 48 (1997).

A Misapplication of Daubert: Compton v. Subaru of America Opens the Gate for Unreliable and Irrelevant Expert Testimony, Jonathan R. Schofield, 97 B.Y.U. L.Rev. 489 (1997).

Novel Scientific Evidence and Controversial Cases: A Social Psychological Examination, John S. DeWitt, James T. Richardson & Lyle G. Warner, 21 Law & Psychol. Rev. 1 (1997).

Post-Daubert Confusion with Expert Testimony, Michael C. Polentz, 36 Santa Clara L.Rev. 1187 (1996).

In re TMI: Junk Science Meltdown, Mark M. Lewis, 19 Thomas Jefferson L.Rev. 305 (1997).

United States v. Crumby: A Potential Revolution in the Admission of Polygraph Evidence, Kenneth C. Moorsund, Jr., 23 Am. J. Crim. L. 479 (1996).

The Use of Scientific Peer Review and Colloquia to Assist Judges in the Admissibility Gatekeeping Mandated by Daubert, Lawrence S. Pinsky, 34 Hous. L.Rev. 527 (1997).

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

The Hobbs Act in the Nineties: Confusion or Clarification of the Quid Pro Quo Standard in Extortion Cases Involving Public Officials, 31 Tulsa L.J. 781, Summer 1996, Steven C. Yarbrough.

Symposium: Blackmail the Theory, History, and Practice of the Bribery-extortion Distinction, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1695, May, 1993, James Lindgren.

Symposium on Coercion: an Interdisciplinary Examination of Coercion, Explotation, and the Law the Twin Faces of Judicial Corruption: Extortion and Bribery, 74 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1231, 1997, Ian Ayres.

Threats, Blackmail, Extortion and Robbery and Other Bad Things, 35 Tulsa L.J. 333, Winter, 2000, Walter Block.

Texts:

LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, (West, 1986) § 8.12 pp. 458-63.