Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?, Phoebe Ellsworth Jul 1995

Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?, Phoebe Ellsworth

Law Quadrangle (formerly Law Quad Notes)

An analysis of mock jury deliberations indicated that juries could competently evaluate facts, weed out errors, and focus on important issues. However the jurors' understanding of the law and how to apply it was substantially inferior to their understanding of the facts and issues.

This article has been condensed with permission from one originally published in Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 52, No. 4. Most reference citations have been deleted. For a fully-footnoted copy of the original article, please contact the LQN editor.

Few advocates of the jury system would argue that the average juror as competent a tribunal as …


The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski Jun 1995

The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that witnesses who conspire with a state official to present perjured testimony at a judicial proceeding should not have absolute immunity from a section 1983 suit for damages. Part I provides background information on section 1983 and explains why a witness-state conspiracy satisfies the requirements of a section 1983 cause of action. Part I also summarizes the Supreme Court's doctrinal approach to section 1983 immunity. Finally, Part I examines two Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the issue of immunity for witness conspirators: Briscoe v. LaHue, and Malley v. Briggs. Part II applies the …


Coping With Phantom Risks In The Courts, Peter W. Huber Mar 1995

Coping With Phantom Risks In The Courts, Peter W. Huber

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Dr. Huber describes "phantom" risks as those tending to hover indefinitely, never to crystallize. He argues that legal procedures should optimally lead' to closure and eliminate unwarranted fears.


Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein Jan 1995

Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Ronald J. Allen, David J. Balding, Peter Donnelly, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Lewis Henry Larue, Roger C. Park, Bernard Robertson, Alexander Stein

Articles

This is not a conventional article. It is an edited version of messages sent to an Internet discussion list. The listings begin with the mention of a recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, parts of which are reproduced below. The listings soon move to broader issues concerning probability and other formal systems, their limitations, and their uses either in court or as devices for understanding legal proof.


Due Process Jan 1995

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook Jan 1995

An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook

Cleveland State Law Review

This article addresses the need to formulate a uniform and predictable approach to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony which relates the law to the facts. First, it briefly discusses the history of expert opinion testimony. Second, it discusses, through a case analysis, the difficult, if not impossible task that courts have assumed in attempting to differentiate between two types of expert opinions: (1) those which are, by their nature, factual; and (2) those which require some level of legal analysis-directly relating the law to the facts of the case. Finally, this article suggests an alternative approach which is arguably …


Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman Jan 1995

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …


Right To Cross-Examine Jan 1995

Right To Cross-Examine

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.