Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (43)
- SelectedWorks (11)
- University of Michigan Law School (9)
- Pepperdine University (8)
- Selected Works (8)
-
- BLR (7)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (6)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (6)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (5)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
- New York Law School (3)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- University of Richmond (3)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Kentucky (2)
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (2)
- University of San Diego (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (41)
- All Faculty Scholarship (8)
- Articles (6)
- ExpressO (6)
- Pepperdine Law Review (6)
-
- Faculty Working Papers (5)
- Faculty Publications (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- Hon. Donald E. Shelton (3)
- Indiana Law Journal (3)
- NYLS Law Review (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Supreme Court Case Files (3)
- Villanova Law Review (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Fredric I. Lederer (2)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (2)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (2)
- Popular Media (2)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (2)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (2)
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- barbara p billauer esq (2)
- Adam Lamparello (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 169
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance Of New Evidence And Changed Circumstances, Gwendolyn Savitz
Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance Of New Evidence And Changed Circumstances, Gwendolyn Savitz
Cleveland State Law Review
Administrative finality of agency action is generally thought of as a method of avoiding premature judicial review—a claim that the review is too early. But it is also used to prevent judicial review by claiming that the review has now come too late. There are two primary exceptions to this prohibition: new evidence and changed circumstances. However, courts and agencies are reluctant to permit challengers to use these exceptions as often as should be statutorily allowed, an area that scholarship has been neglected.
This Article fills the gap by exploring this aspect of administrative finality, looking at the important government …
Neuropsychological Malingering Determination: The Illusion Of Scientific Lie Detection, Chunlin Leonhard, Christoph Leonhard
Neuropsychological Malingering Determination: The Illusion Of Scientific Lie Detection, Chunlin Leonhard, Christoph Leonhard
Georgia Law Review
Humans believe that other humans lie, especially when stakes are high. Stakes can be very high in a courtroom, from substantial amounts of monetary damages in civil litigation to liberty or life in criminal cases. One of the most frequently disputed issues in U.S. courts is whether litigants are malingering when they allege physical or mental conditions for which they are seeking damages or which would allow them to avoid criminal punishment. Understandably, creating a scientific method to detect lies is very appealing to all persons engaged in lie detection. Neuropsychologists claim that they can use neuropsychological assessment tests (Malingering …
The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti
The History Of Forensic-Science Evidence In Criminal Trials And The Role Of Early “Success” In Establishing Its Putative Reliability, Carrie Leonetti
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Article posits the history of forensic-science evidence plays a significant role in the unquestioning manner of its modern acceptance. It traces early high-profile forensic science “successes” and the public reactions to them. It argues the public perception of the “advances” of forensic science continues to play a role in the lack of scrutiny given to these disciplines in admissibility decisions today. It concludes, when it comes to forensic science, history should play a different role by serving as a critical warning rather than a congratulatory buttress.
Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin
Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin
Faculty Scholarship
A child makes an out-of-court statement accusing an adult of abuse. That statement is important proof, but it also presents serious reliability concerns. When deciding whether it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, should a court consider whether the child’s statement is corroborated—whether, for example, there is medical evidence of abuse? More broadly, should courts consider corroboration when deciding whether evidence is reliable enough to be admitted at trial? Judges, rule-makers, and scholars have taken significantly divergent approaches to this question and come to different conclusions.
This Article argues that there is a key problem with using corroboration to evaluate …
Creating A System For All Parents: Rethinking Procedural And Evidentiary Rules In Proceedings With Self-Represented Litigants, Cassandra Richards
Creating A System For All Parents: Rethinking Procedural And Evidentiary Rules In Proceedings With Self-Represented Litigants, Cassandra Richards
Dalhousie Law Journal
Through qualitative interviews undertaken with ten judges at the Superior Court of Québec, this study considers the procedural and evidentiary challenges faced by self-represented litigants in family law matters. Subsequently, this paper offers solutions to the problems identified. The goal of this paper is to provide legal participants with concrete techniques to facilitate proceedings with SRLs that uphold their duty of impartiality and duty of assistance. While this article will likely be useful for judges who engage with SRLs daily, it will also be of interest to those working on issues relating to access to justice, SRLs, as well as …
Confrontation's Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Confrontation's Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment affords the “accused” in “criminal prosecutions” the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against” them. A particular challenge for courts over at least the last decade-plus has been the degree to which the Confrontation Clause applies to forensic reports, such as those presenting the results of a DNA, toxicology, or other CSI-type analysis. Should use of forensic reports entitle criminal defendants to confront purportedly “objective” analysts from the lab producing the report? If so, which analyst or analysts? For forensic processes that require multiple analysts, should the prosecution be required to produce …
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Seattle University Law Review
This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.
We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …
Power And Statistical Significance In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach
Power And Statistical Significance In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach
All Faculty Scholarship
Event studies, a half-century-old approach to measuring the effect of events on stock prices, are now ubiquitous in securities fraud litigation. In determining whether the event study demonstrates a price effect, expert witnesses typically base their conclusion on whether the results are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, a threshold that is drawn from the academic literature. As a positive matter, this represents a disconnect with legal standards of proof. As a normative matter, it may reduce enforcement of fraud claims because litigation event studies typically involve quite low statistical power even for large-scale frauds.
This paper, written for …
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Unbuckling The Seat Belt Defense In Arkansas, Spencer G. Dougherty
Arkansas Law Review
The “seat belt defense” has been hotly litigated over the decades in numerous jurisdictions across the United States. It is an affirmative defense that, when allowed, reduces a plaintiff’s recovery for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision where the defendant can establish that those injuries would have been less severe or avoided entirely had the plaintiff been wearing an available seat belt. This is an unsettled legal issue in Arkansas, despite the growing number of cases in which the seat belt defense is raised as an issue. Most jurisdictions, including Arkansas, initially rejected the defense, but the basis for …
Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment grants “the accused” in “all criminal prosecutions” a right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” A particular problem occurs when there is a gap in time between the testimony that is offered, and the cross-examination of it, as where, pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption, evidence of a current witness’s prior statement is offered and for some intervening reason her current memory is impaired. Does this fatally affect the opportunity to “confront” the witness? The Supreme Court has, to date, left unclear the extent to which a memory-impaired witness can …
Confession Obsession: How To Protect Minors In Interrogations, Cindy Chau
Confession Obsession: How To Protect Minors In Interrogations, Cindy Chau
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Exporting American Discovery, Yanbai Andrea Wang
Exporting American Discovery, Yanbai Andrea Wang
All Faculty Scholarship
This Article presents the first comprehensive study of an intriguing and increasingly pervasive practice that is transforming civil litigation worldwide: US judges now routinely compel discovery in this country and make it available for disputes and parties not before US courts. In the past decade and a half, federal courts have received and granted thousands of such discovery requests for use in foreign civil proceedings governed by different procedural rules. I call this global role played by US courts the “export” of American discovery.
This Article compiles and analyzes a dataset of over three thousand foreign discovery requests filed between …
Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer
Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer
Fredric I. Lederer
No abstract provided.
Courtroom Technology: For Trial Lawyers The Future Is Now, Fredric I. Lederer
Courtroom Technology: For Trial Lawyers The Future Is Now, Fredric I. Lederer
Fredric I. Lederer
No abstract provided.
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Uncovering Juror Racial Bias, Christian Sundquist
Uncovering Juror Racial Bias, Christian Sundquist
Articles
The presence of bias in the courtroom has the potential to undermine public faith in the adversarial process, distort trial outcomes, and obfuscate the search for justice. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required post-verdict judicial inquiry in criminal cases where racial bias clearly served as a “significant motivating factor” in juror decision-making. Courts will nonetheless likely struggle in interpreting what constitutes a "clear statement of racial bias" and whether such bias constituted a "significant motivating factor" in a juror's verdict. This Article will examine how …
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson
Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson
Maine Law Review
Prosecutorial forensic misconduct has become front page news in Maine. Since April of 1993, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has reversed convictions in three highly publicized cases based on remarks made by the prosecutor. In State v. Steen, the prosecutor asked the defendant to give his opinion concerning the veracity of other witnesses and suggested in closing argument that the favorable testimony given by the defense's expert witness resulted from the fee he had received. The Law Court vacated the gross sexual assault conviction, finding that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument “clearly suggested” to …
The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick
The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick
All Faculty Scholarship
Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly.
This Article explores an array of …
Bias On Trial: Toward An Open Discussion Of Racial Stereotypes In The Courtroom, Mikah K. Thompson
Bias On Trial: Toward An Open Discussion Of Racial Stereotypes In The Courtroom, Mikah K. Thompson
Faculty Works
In the 2017 case Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed several safeguards that are in place to assist the trial court in identifying racial bias among jurors. These safeguards include voir dire examination regarding racial bias, observation of juror demeanor and conduct that might demonstrate racial bias, reports of racially biased comments or actions by jurors during trial, and non-juror evidence of racial bias after trial. The Court acknowledged that these safeguards may be insufficient at times and therefore added a fifth one, holding that trial courts may review evidence suggesting that racial bias was a motivating factor …
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Innocent Suffering: The Unavailability Of Post-Conviction Relief In Virginia Courts, Kaitlyn Potter
Innocent Suffering: The Unavailability Of Post-Conviction Relief In Virginia Courts, Kaitlyn Potter
University of Richmond Law Review
This comment examines actual innocence in Virginia: the progress it has made, the problems it still faces, and the possibilities for reform. Part I addresses past reform to the system, spurred by the shocking tales of Thomas Haynesworth and others. Part II identifies three of the most prevalent systemic challenges marring Virginia's justice system: (1) flawed scientific evidence; (2) the premature destruction of evidence; and (3) false confessions and guilty pleas. Part III suggests ways in which Virginia can, and should, address these challenges to ensure that the justice system is actually serving justice.
Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan
Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan
Northwestern University Law Review
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidentiary contexts, such as those involving hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents.
This …
Actions Speak Louder Than Images: The Use Of Neuroscientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, Stephen J. Morse
Actions Speak Louder Than Images: The Use Of Neuroscientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, Stephen J. Morse
All Faculty Scholarship
This invited commentary for Journal of Law & the Biosciences considers four empirical studies previously published in the journal of the reception of neuroscientific evidence in criminal cases in the United States, Canada, England and Wales, and the Netherlands. There are conceded methodological problems with all, but the data are nonetheless instructive and suggestive. The thesis of the comment is that the courts are committing the same errors that have bedeviled the reception of psychiatric and psychological evidence. There is insufficient caution about the state of the science, and more importantly, there is insufficient understanding of the relevance of the …
State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.