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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, Gustavo Ribeiro Aug 2021

Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, Gustavo Ribeiro

Utah Law Review

This Article develops an analytical framework to investigate novel ways in which legal reforms disguised as “substantive” can affect procedural due process safeguards differently among racial groups. Scholars have long recognized the impact evidence rules have on substantive policies, such as modifying primary incentives or affecting the distribution of legal entitlements in society. However, legal scholars have not paid enough attention to the reverse effect: how changes in “substantive law” influence policy objectives traditionally associated with evidence law—“evidentiary policies.”

To fill this gap, this Article discusses three related evidentiary policies. The first is accuracy, which courts and scholars consider a …


Where Are The Gatekeepers? Challenging Utah’S Threshold Standard For Admissibility Of Expert Witness Testimony, Samuel D. Hatch Dec 2018

Where Are The Gatekeepers? Challenging Utah’S Threshold Standard For Admissibility Of Expert Witness Testimony, Samuel D. Hatch

Utah Law Review

Utah’s Rule 702 on the admissibility of expert witness testimony is far too low. Utah trial courts cannot to fulfill their role as gatekeepers because the threshold standard forces them to admit almost everything without ensuring reliability. Accordingly, Utah evidence law will benefit from amending Rule 702 whether it reverts to the federal rule or elects the Minnesota approach. Either is preferred to the almost nonexistent standard currently in place, which has drifted far from the “inherent[ly] reliab[le]” tradition and is no longer “the touchstone of admissibility” in Utah. The State should amend Rule of Evidence 702 to allow judges …


Diagnosis Dangerous: Why State Licensing Boards Should Step In To Prevent Mental Health Practitioners From Speculating Beyond The Scope Of Professional Standards, Jennifer S. Bard Jan 2015

Diagnosis Dangerous: Why State Licensing Boards Should Step In To Prevent Mental Health Practitioners From Speculating Beyond The Scope Of Professional Standards, Jennifer S. Bard

Utah Law Review

This Article reviews the use of mental health experts to provide testimony on the future dangerousness of individuals who have already been convicted of a crime that qualifies them for the death penalty. Although this practice is common in many states that still retain the death penalty, it most frequently occurs in Texas because of a statute that makes it mandatory for juries to determine the future dangerousness of the defendant they have just found guilty. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have protested the use of mental health professionals in this setting because there are …


Factually Innocent Without Dna? An Analysis Of Utah's Factual Innocence Statute, Nic Caine Jan 2013

Factually Innocent Without Dna? An Analysis Of Utah's Factual Innocence Statute, Nic Caine

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Since 1989, DNA evidence has fueled the innocence movement, helping hundreds prove their innocence and obtain freedom. DNA technology has been an invaluable development for the innocence movement, and DNA technology will continue to advance and improve in the future. DNA evidence is not available in the majority of cases, however, and many believe that DNA exonerations will eventually diminish as DNA analysis becomes more widely available. Furthermore, “for every DNA exoneree there are hundreds if not over a thousand wrongfully convicted defendants whose cases do not contain biological evidence that could prove innocence.”150 It is time for other states …


The Supreme Court Screws Up The Science: There Is No Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome “Scientific” Controversy, Joëlle Anne Moreno, Brian Holmgren Jan 2013

The Supreme Court Screws Up The Science: There Is No Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome “Scientific” Controversy, Joëlle Anne Moreno, Brian Holmgren

Utah Law Review

Even if it is not true that law school is the consolation prize for those whose freshman biology grades make medical school impossible, judges, law professors, and lawyers are not (as a general rule) scientists. But they increasingly shape our understanding of scientific ideas by determining how law interprets and applies scientific information and by ensuring that bad science does not create bad law. As law becomes more science-dependent and expert witnesses play a greater role in a wide range of criminal and civil cases, there has been a concomitant increase in the need to ensure that the expert testimony …