Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Evidence (17)
- Criminal Law (9)
- Constitutional Law (7)
- Criminal Procedure (6)
- Courts (4)
-
- Legislation (3)
- Litigation (3)
- First Amendment (2)
- Juvenile Law (2)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
- Legal Remedies (2)
- Religion Law (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Psychology (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Torts (1)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Machines Like Me: A Proposal On The Admissibility Of Artificially Intelligent Expert Testimony, Andrew W. Jurs, Scott Devito
Machines Like Me: A Proposal On The Admissibility Of Artificially Intelligent Expert Testimony, Andrew W. Jurs, Scott Devito
Pepperdine Law Review
With the rapidly expanding sophistication of artificial intelligence systems, their reliability, and cost-effectiveness for solving problems, the current trend of admitting testimony based on artificially intelligent (AI) systems is only likely to grow. In that context, it is imperative for us to ask what rules of evidence judges today should use relating to such evidence. To answer that question, we provide an in-depth review of expert systems, machine learning systems, and neural networks. Based on that analysis, we contend that evidence from only certain types of AI systems meet the requirements for admissibility, while other systems do not. The break …
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (adopted by various states as well) allows for the introduction of certain convictions at trial to impeach the credibility— i.e., character for truthfulness—of any witness. The rule bifurcates its requirements between those that apply to criminal defendants—who, in theory, are afforded greater protection throughout the law than are all other participants in trials—and all remaining witnesses. The most important distinction between the standards that apply to these two classes of witnesses is that for prior crimes of criminal defendants to be introduced to impeach their credibility, those wrongdoings must survive a special balancing test spelled …
The Duty Of The Prosecutor To Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States V. Agurs, Christian F. Dubia Jr
The Duty Of The Prosecutor To Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States V. Agurs, Christian F. Dubia Jr
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard
United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …
Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence In Civil Cases: Could This Be The Path Out Of The Labyrinth Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Richard J. Hanscom
Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence In Civil Cases: Could This Be The Path Out Of The Labyrinth Of The Exclusionary Rule?, Richard J. Hanscom
Pepperdine Law Review
The use of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases has been the subject of extensive debate since its inception. Although most efforts to modify the rule have been deemed unworkable, the author proposes a modification that is both workable and sensible. Modification would be accomplished by legislation which admits the results of illegal searches by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith, and, at the same time, provide fixed monetary sanctions against the governmental agencies whose officers conducted the search. The author proposes a good faith balancing test to determine evidence admissibility and administrative type proceedings to determine monetary …
Child Witnesses In Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, And Proposals For Reform, Dominic J. Fote
Child Witnesses In Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, And Proposals For Reform, Dominic J. Fote
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Adult Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse And The Statute Of Limitations: The Need For Consistent Application Of The Delayed Discovery Rule, Gregory G. Gordon
Adult Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse And The Statute Of Limitations: The Need For Consistent Application Of The Delayed Discovery Rule, Gregory G. Gordon
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
It Is Broken: Breaking The Inertia Of The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase
It Is Broken: Breaking The Inertia Of The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Optimum Remedy For Constitutional Breaches: Multiaccessed Civil Penalties In Equity, Robert C. Fellmeth
The Optimum Remedy For Constitutional Breaches: Multiaccessed Civil Penalties In Equity, Robert C. Fellmeth
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Exclusionary Rule: Fix It, But Fix It Right - A Critique Of If It's Broken, Fix It: Moving Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, Gregory D. Totten, Peter D. Kossoris, Ebbe B. Ebbesen
The Exclusionary Rule: Fix It, But Fix It Right - A Critique Of If It's Broken, Fix It: Moving Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, Gregory D. Totten, Peter D. Kossoris, Ebbe B. Ebbesen
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Administrative Replacements: How Much Can They Do?, Laurie L. Levenson
Administrative Replacements: How Much Can They Do?, Laurie L. Levenson
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Invitation To Dialogue: Exploring The Pepperdine Proposal To Move Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase
An Invitation To Dialogue: Exploring The Pepperdine Proposal To Move Beyond The Exclusionary Rule, L. Timothy Perrin, H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar
Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Testimony For Sale: The Law And Ethics Of Snitches And Experts, George C. Harris
Testimony For Sale: The Law And Ethics Of Snitches And Experts, George C. Harris
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Behavioral Science Testimony, Henry F. Fradella, Adam Fogarty, Lauren O'Neill
The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Behavioral Science Testimony, Henry F. Fradella, Adam Fogarty, Lauren O'Neill
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Confronting The Shadow: Is Forcing A Muslim Witness To Unveil In A Criminal Trial A Constitutional Right, Or An Unreasonable Intrusion?, Steven R. Houchin
Confronting The Shadow: Is Forcing A Muslim Witness To Unveil In A Criminal Trial A Constitutional Right, Or An Unreasonable Intrusion?, Steven R. Houchin
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill
Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill
Pepperdine Law Review
My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys - and this is what the proponents of a duty …