Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.
The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi
The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …
Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein
Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …