Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Administrative proceedings; Dodd-Frank; Securities Regulation; Chamber of Commerce; Fair enforcement; Admissibility of evidence; Hearsay; Discovery; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules of Practice; Administrative guidelines; History of the SEC; Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934; Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 (ITSA); Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988 (ITSFEA); Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990; Sarbanes-Oxley; Administrative Law Judges (ALJs); Statutory interpretation; Chevron deference; Forum selection; Administrative rulemaking; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); CFR Rule 360; CFR Rule 233; CFR Rule 320; Pre-hearing length; Depositions (1)
- Adversarial proceeding (1)
- Arrest; Aut Dedere Aut Judicare; Call Center; Caller ID; Con Artist; Concurrent Jurisdiction; Conviction; COVID-19; Cryptocurrency; Customary International Law; Cybercrime; Employment; Extradition; Extraterritoriality; Financial Crime; Fraud; Government Imposter; Immigration; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Internet; INTERPOL; Investment Scam; Jurisdiction; Law Enforcement; Lottery Scam; Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty; Passive Personality Principle; Phone Call; Prosecution; Robocalls; Scam; Scarcity Principle; Sovereignty; Tax Fraud Scam; Technical Support; Technical Support; Scam; Telephone Calls; Territoriality Principle; Utilitarianism; Victim; Voice Over Internet Protocol (1)
- Attenuated circumstances (1)
-
- Attorney-client privilege; full and frank conversations; hack; hackers; hacktivism; whistleblowing; technology; cybersecurity; ethics; bar associations; evidence; Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; claw back agreements; quick peek agreements; litigation; waiver; express waiver; implicit waiver; privileged communications; inadvertent disclosure; unintentional disclosure; unauthorized disclosure; purloined communications; stolen documents; technology; email; Wikileaks; Panama papers; Ashley Madison; Clinton Foundation; Teneo; John Podesta; Sony Entertainment; public domain; duty of confidentiality (1)
- Battle of the experts (1)
- Black lives matter (1)
- China; medical negligence; litigation; selection bias; adversarial bias; judicial deference; courts; expert opinions; court appointed expert testimony; inquisitorial system; authentication; re-authentication; Supreme People's Court; documents of adjudication decisions; FA-MNA; MA-MNA; medical associations; forensic authentication agency; municipal; provincial; national; locality rule; common law; civil law; defendant; plaintiff; fault; causation; causal contribution; personal injury (1)
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Employment Discrimination; McDonnell; Douglas; Ortiz; Nassar; evidence; evidentiary standard; retaliation claim; burden of proof; standard; but for; causation; jurisprudence; Seventh Circuit; employee (1)
- Civil litigation (1)
- Conflict of interest (1)
- Criminal Law; Tort Law; Expert Evidence (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- DEA (1)
- Data collection (1)
- Disqualification doctrine (1)
- Disqualification test (1)
- Drug Enforcement Agency (1)
- Earl Warren (1)
- Electronic surveillance (1)
- Empirical analysis; empirical legal studies; scientific evidence; reliability; legal scholarship; litigation; data fishing; false positives; type-I error; type-II error; statistics; statistical analysis; quantitative research; statistical significance; expert evidence; data manipulation; credibility; causal inference; Daubert; Rule 702; accuracy; selective reporting; research practices; hypothesis testing; data mining; p-hacking; p-value; HARking; data dredging; data analysis; hired gun; battle of the experts; big data; incorrect verdicts; data exploration; cross-validation; pilot studies; regression; subgrouping; trial evidence; juries; jurors; judges; courts; professors; experimental study; study design; randomized controlled trial; RCT; statistical research; observational study; Federal Rules of Evidence; false convictions; decision-making; verdict error; evidence law; civil procedure; expert testimony (1)
- Eric Garner (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence; forensic science (1)
- Exclusionary Rule (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Expert disqualification (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witness disqualification (1)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
Expert Evidence: The Gatekeeper Role Of Justice, Victor E. Schwartz
Expert Evidence: The Gatekeeper Role Of Justice, Victor E. Schwartz
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
No abstract provided.
Defendants In The Dark: How The Jencks Act Is Incompatible With The Adversarial Legal System, Eli J. Esakoff
Defendants In The Dark: How The Jencks Act Is Incompatible With The Adversarial Legal System, Eli J. Esakoff
Journal of Law and Policy
The Jencks Act is a McCarthy Era law that prohibits compelling the disclosure of any statement made by a government witness in a federal criminal prosecution until after the witness has testified at trial. Passed in 1957 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jencks v. United States, the Act’s life in Congress was “nasty, brutish, and short.” In prosecuting its anti-communist “witch hunts” of the era, the government strove to keep hidden as much of its case against those accused as possible. Against this backdrop of the desire for secrecy, the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant …
What Counts As ‘Racist Enough?’: A Clearer Standard For New Trials When Jurors Demonstrate Racial Bias, Priyadarshini Das
What Counts As ‘Racist Enough?’: A Clearer Standard For New Trials When Jurors Demonstrate Racial Bias, Priyadarshini Das
Journal of Law and Policy
The no-impeachment rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), necessitates that jurors keep their deliberations secret. However, in the 2017 Supreme Court case Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Court created a racial bias exception to the no-impeachment rule. This exception allows jurors to notify the court when “one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.” This Note argues that this standard is too narrow because it fails to consider several situations of racial bias, like implicit bias. The ineffectiveness of this exception is demonstrated …
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Brooklyn Law Review
A broad scholarly coalition supports the prohibition or diminution of the impeachment of criminal defendants with their convictions. Yet scholars should pay more attention to the flipside arrangement: impeachment of prosecution witnesses by defense counsel. First, because those engaged in reform efforts need to resolve the competing interests: constitutional arguments on behalf of the defense, but, on the other hand, concerns about a tool that (regardless of the nature of the witness) risks reinforcing biases and stereotypes. Second, because the impossibility of adequate resolution is itself important to note. Whether one considers the conflicting values of rule-makers deciding whether to …
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
Brooklyn Law Review
In Payne v. Tennessee, the US Supreme Court upheld the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) on the ground that they provide valuable information to the sentencer. In the three decades since, two additional rationales for VIS have become ascendant: most prominently, a therapeutic rationale, and more recently, a public education rationale. In this article, I expand upon my critiques of the informational and therapeutic rationales in light of a growing body of empirical evidence about how VIS affect both sentencers and crime victims. Focusing on the powerful and viral VIS delivered at the Larry Nassar guilty plea hearings and …
Credibility In Empirical Legal Analysis, Hillel J. Bavli
Credibility In Empirical Legal Analysis, Hillel J. Bavli
Brooklyn Law Review
Empirical analysis is central in both legal scholarship and litigation, but it is not credible. Researchers can manipulate data to arrive at any conclusion they wish to obtain. A practice known as data fishing—searching for and selectively reporting methods and results that are favorable to the researcher—entirely invalidates a study’s results by giving rise to false positives and false impressions. Nevertheless, it is prevalent in law, leading to false claims, incorrect verdicts, and destructive policy. In this article, I examine the harm that data fishing in empirical legal research causes. I then build on methods in the sciences to develop …
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Advancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are …
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
Journal of Law and Policy
Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test. With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.
How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …
Throwing Out Junk Science: How A New Rule Of Evidence Could Protect A Criminal Defendant's Right To Confront Forensic Scientists, Michael Luongo
Throwing Out Junk Science: How A New Rule Of Evidence Could Protect A Criminal Defendant's Right To Confront Forensic Scientists, Michael Luongo
Journal of Law and Policy
As the forensic science industry grows, so do the scandals – overburdened crime labs, unverified science, corrupt analysts, and diminishing federal oversight. Given the need to ensure that valid forensic science-based evidence is used at trial, a criminal defense attorney typically has the opportunity to cross-examine the scientist who conducted the forensic analysis. However, the 2012 Supreme Court decision of Williams v. Illinois has muddied an otherwise cohesive Confrontation Clause doctrine, allowing for the admission of forensic evidence without the testimony of the forensic scientist, but with no clear holding and different interpretations about what is considered “testimonial evidence.” To …
The (Not-So) “Brave New World Of International Criminal Enforcement”: The Intricacies Of Multi-Jurisdictional White-Collar Investigations, Emily T. Carlson
The (Not-So) “Brave New World Of International Criminal Enforcement”: The Intricacies Of Multi-Jurisdictional White-Collar Investigations, Emily T. Carlson
Brooklyn Law Review
We have entered a new age of international white-collar crime and are seeing the growing interdependency of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and parallel foreign agencies to conduct investigations and subsequent prosecutorial proceedings. This coordination to combat these crimes, however, has revealed a troubling question—how can enforcement agencies work effectively together if they have fundamental differences in the legal authority governing testimony-gathering and what evidence is allowed before a grand jury? The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Allen, confronted this issue directly as it overturned two indictments arising out of suspected manipulation of a …
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Brooklyn Law Review
The admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification evidence is an effective means of ensuring that juries and judges will weigh eyewitness identification evidence appropriately. The fallibility of such evidence is an increasingly well-researched and documented phenomenon in criminal law. Despite publicity of the frequency with which eyewitness identification evidence leads to wrongful convictions, studies show that jurors are often unable to properly assess the probative value of such testimony. Judges are also often unfamiliar with the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. A 2016 Court of Appeals of New York case, People v. McCullough, represented a …
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that may be a harbinger for an important shift in the federal judiciary’s long-standing employment discrimination jurisprudence. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Judge Easterbrook reiterated the frustration with the existing “rat’s nest” of tests and standards used in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The note contains two overarching arguments. First, the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination and “rat’s nest” of tests and standards has led to an untenable situation in which federal district courts apply different standards at different stages of litigations. This in turn has caused confusion amongst the various federal …
Reevaluating Attorney-Client Privilege In The Age Of Hackers, Anne E. Conroy
Reevaluating Attorney-Client Privilege In The Age Of Hackers, Anne E. Conroy
Brooklyn Law Review
The news story is now familiar: hackers breach a security system and post internal, confidential information online for anyone with an Internet connection to comb through. This digital version of whistleblowing, called “hacktivism,” is attractive to the media, which has leaned on broad First Amendment protections to widely cover the confidential communications revealed by hackers. These hacks also provide attorneys with enticing opportunities to look through previously confidential files. But as ethics and evidentiary rules stand, it is not clear if an attorney may view the files, let alone use them as evidence in litigation. That companies are hacked is …
The Choice Is (Not) Yours: Why The Sec Must Further Amend Its Rules Of Practice To Increase Fairness In Administrative Proceedings, Madeline Ilibassi
The Choice Is (Not) Yours: Why The Sec Must Further Amend Its Rules Of Practice To Increase Fairness In Administrative Proceedings, Madeline Ilibassi
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays an extremely important role within the securities industry—it oversees the financial markets, protects consumers, and maintains market efficiency. One of the most important (and recently one of most criticized) responsibilities of the SEC is its duty to enforce the securities laws and punish violators. During the past two decades, and especially after the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement has grown substantially and has utilized administrative enforcement proceedings at an increasing rate. However; this utilization has been occurring without any substantial …
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …
A Domestic Consequence Of The Government Spying On Its Citizens: The Guilty Go Free, Mystica M. Alexander, William P. Wiggins
A Domestic Consequence Of The Government Spying On Its Citizens: The Guilty Go Free, Mystica M. Alexander, William P. Wiggins
Brooklyn Law Review
In recent years, a seemingly endless stream of headlines have alerted people to the steady and relentless government encroachment on their civil liberties. Consider, for example, headlines such as “U.S. Directs Agents to Cover Up Program Used to Investigate Americans,” “DEA Admits to Keeping Secret Database of Phone Calls,” or “No Morsel Too Miniscule for All-Consuming N.S.A.” Of concern is not only the U.S. government’s collection of data on its citizens, but also how that information is aggregated, stored, and used. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. While the drafters of the Fourth …
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
Brooklyn Law Review
In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …