Articles by Professor Woody Woodruff

About Professor Woody Woodruff (10 Articles)

Professor Woodruff has been teaching evidence and trial advocacy at Campbell University School of Law for over 20 years. Prior to joining the Campbell faculty, he was a colonel in the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and was responsible for defending the Army in civil litigation. Professor Woodruff graduated from the University of Alabama and received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina. Click here to view Professor Woodruff's full bio on the Campbell Law website.

Contact: Email

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part III.b

September 13, 2013

An application of the recent Ortiz-Zape decision reveals the steps North Carolina lawyers need to take to protect their client and promote confidence in the justice system. ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part III.a

September 12, 2013

An application of the recent Ortiz-Zape decision reveals the steps North Carolina lawyers need to take to protect their client and promote confidence in the justice system. ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation and Cocaine, part II

August 1, 2013

Under the testing analyst and testifying analyst paradigm established in State v. Ortiz-Zape, the jury gets to hear an expert opine that a substance has been confirmed as an illegal substance, but the criminal defendant never gets to confront the expert that actually conducted the tests producing that opinion. ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Confrontation, Confusion, and Cocaine – Clear, but not Convincing

July 15, 2013

Under the testing analyst and testifying analyst paradigm that is now the law in North Carolina, the jury gets to hear an expert opine that a substance is cocaine, but the criminal defendant never gets to confront the expert who actually conducted the tests that produced that opinion. ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: To Lead or Not to Lead, That is the Question?!

June 12, 2013

Leading questions ordinarily allowed on cross-examination can be entirely inappropriate on direct-examination, but this does not mean only non-leading questions are permitted on direct. ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: North Carolina’s Police Officer Exception to the Hearsay Rule

May 8, 2013

As a law professor, I’m always looking for interesting cases from which to create exam questions, both multiple choice and essay. Sometimes the cases are rather straightforward and illustrate the application of a rule of evidence quite well. These usually make great cases for multiple choice ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Getting the First and Last Word

April 13, 2013

I doubt there’s a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer in the state who would give up the opportunity to be the last lawyer to address the jury in a contested case. Getting the last word is important. The principle of recency tells us the people tend to remember what they hear last. What ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Corroborate This!

March 9, 2013

It was a Thursday afternoon, and I was contemplating a difficult and nuanced issue of evidence law. My eyes were closed in deep concentration… OK, so I was napping after a big lunch. My “contemplation” was interrupted by a third-year student who had done quite well in Evidence the ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial: Cross-Examination by the Numbers

February 5, 2013

We’re all familiar with them, those classic cross-examination tips that, if applied correctly, will win your case and make you famous. Irving Younger gave us “The 10 Commandments of Cross-Examination.” Who can forget how Roy Black destroyed the State’s witness in the Robert Kennedy ...[Continue Reading]

Prove it! Musings on advocacy, evidence, and the problems of proof at trial – Admissibility of prior bad acts under NCRE 404(b): Alchemy or Analysis?

December 15, 2012

It happens all the time. Defense counsel in a criminal case works hard to avoid opening the door to her client’s character. The facts of the case may be bad enough, but when the prosecutor gets to ladle a generous helping of bad character evidence on top, things go from bad to worse. But ...[Continue Reading]