Law Commons^™

The Role Of Theory And Evidence In Media Regulation And Law: A Response To Baker And A Defense Of Empirical Legal Studies, Daniel E. Ho, Kevin M. Quinn

Federal Communications Law Journal

We thank Professor Baker for a stimulating response to an Article in which we offered empirical evidence of editorial viewpoint diversity in the face of media consolidation. We appreciate his praise of the Article as "apply[ing] innovative statistical techniques" and as "far superior methodologically to most empirical studies" he has seen. At the same time, Baker "denies the policy relevance" to our Article because empirical evidence is "entirely irrelevant" to the field of media regulation under his preferred normative theory. Baker argues sweepingly that the legal academy's increased willingness to consider the perspectives of quantitative empiricists and positive theorists is …

Arsenic And Old Chemistry: Images Of Mad Alchemists, Experts Attacking Experts, And The Crisis In Forensic Science, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

Drawing on research into the use of experts in early 19th-century criminal trials, the image of mad alchemists in popular culture representations of science, and the distinction between empirical and contingent “interpretive repertoires” in the discourse of scientific controversies, this article explores the controversy over arsenic-detection technologies prior to the Marsh test. In addition to noting the predictable criticism of incompetent expertise in the service of law, this article highlights implied accusations of hubris and amorality on the part of over-confident experts, both in the early 19th-century and in today's crisis of forensic science.

The Parliament Of The Experts, Adrian Vermeule

Duke Law Journal

In the administrative state, how should expert opinions be aggregated and used? If a panel of experts is unanimous on a question of fact, causation, or prediction, can an administrative agency rationally disagree, and on what grounds? If experts are split into a majority view and a minority view, must the agency follow the majority? Should reviewing courts limit agency discretion to select among the conflicting views of experts, or to depart from expert consensus? I argue that voting by expert panels is likely, on average, to be epistemically superior to the substantive judgment of agency heads, in determining questions …

Vol. Ix, Tab 43 - Google Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Exclude Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Confronting Scientific Reports Under Crawford V. Washington, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In People v. Rawlins and People v. Meekins, the New York Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the admissibility of scientific reports prepared by non-testifying forensic experts for use by the prosecution in a criminal trial under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Rawlins involved a fingerprint comparison report prepared by a police forensic expert, and Meekins involved a DNA profile prepared by a technician in a private laboratory. The constitutional issue in both cases was whether these reports were “testimonial” statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, …

An Economic Justification For The Attoney-Client Privilege, Keith A. Kendall

Keith A Kendall

The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest doctrines affecting legal practise. Notwithstanding its longevity, there have been regular calls for its abolition over the years. This paper reviews the literature calling for abolition and that favoring retention that utilize economic reasoning. Weaknesses on both sides are identified, with a new justification for retention put forward that addresses these weaknesses.

Dismissed With Prejudice: Why Application Of The Anti-Jury Impeachment Rule To Allegations Of Racial, Religious, Or Other Bias Violates The Right To Present A Defense, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

It is well established that the presence of a biased juror is a structural defect not subject to a harmless error analysis; however, courts repeatedly have precluded criminal defendants from proving such bias by applying Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent jurors from impeaching their verdicts through allegations of racial, religious, or other prejudice by jurors. Court also routinely have held that application of the Rule in such cases does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury based upon the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Tanner v. United States that the Rule did not violate the right to …

Neuroscientific Evidence In The Law: Fascinating Science, But To Laymen It's Still Phrenology, John M. Mccarthy

John M McCarthy

ABSTRACT

Neuroscientific Evidence in the Law: Fascinating Science, But to Laymen It's Still Phrenology by John M. McCarthy J.D. Yale, 1977

Cognitive neuroscience is one of biology's most exciting specialties, but outside of laboratories, "neuroscience" is not "science" but something else. The article examines what it is. This bears on today's burgeoning "neuro-" applications in the law, including "neuroethics". The article argues that neuroscientific findings should be excluded today from legal contexts, because valid scientific findings do not exist concerning the complex mental performances pertinent to adjudication.

Laymen and neuroscientists embrace a theoretical paradigm that is over two centuries old: …

Flipping Daubert: Putting Climate Change Defendants In The Hot Seat, Ryan A. Hackney

Ryan A Hackney

Can climate change plaintiffs use Daubert challenges to exclude defense expert testimony? Although Daubert challenges have traditionally favored defendants, the strong evidence for climate change may allow plaintiffs to exclude or restrict defense testimony. My paper considers actual claims put forth by climate change skeptics to see how climate change plaintiffs can use Daubert challenges in four ways: challenge the witness, challenge reliability, challenge relevance, and challenge conclusions. The paper suggests that Daubert challenges can be an effective tool for plaintiffs in climate change litigation, and that challenges in this context may provide a blueprint for plaintiffs to follow in …

Broken Principle: Solving The Corporate Privilege Waiver Dilemma, Don R. Berthiaume

Don R Berthiaume

How can corporations cooperate in white collar criminal investigations by providing “just the facts” without waiving the attorney client privilege and work product protection? This article provides a unique solution to this vexing problem. This article argues that Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows civil litigants to issue a subpoena to an organization and cause them to “designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf... about information known or reasonably available to the organization,” provides a template for the creation of a similar …

Teaching The “Portraits, Mosaics And Themes” Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Lee D. Schinasi

Lee D. Schinasi

Teaching the “Portraits, Mosaics and Themes” of The Federal Rules of Evidence: This article discusses an approach to teaching, learning, and applying the Federal Rules of Evidence – the “portraits and mosaics regime.” It is designed to accomplish four things: First, for professors new to teaching evidence, the “portraits and mosaics regime” is a macro level introductory overview of the statute and is aimed at providing perspective and insight. It introduces the statutes’s most significant concepts, how they interrelate, and how they can be applied. Second, it can be used as a teaching outline for new evidence professors approaching their …

Criminal Responsibility For Uspecified Offences, Alon Harel, Ariel Porat

Alon Harel

Should a court convict a defendant for unspecified offenses if there is no reasonable doubt that he committed an offence, even though no particular offence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? Suppose a defendant is charged with two unrelated offenses, for example, pick-pocketing and rape, allegedly committed at different times and places. The probability that he committed each one of the offenses is .9. Assume that the minimum threshold required for conviction is .95. Under prevailing evidence law, the defendant would be acquitted of both charges since no offense can be specifically attributed to him. However, a simple calculation of …

Searching Cell Phones Incident To Arrest: Can Courts And Legislatures Impose Limits On A Bright Line Rule?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Reconceptualizing Trespass, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay addresses an anomaly in trespass law. Trespass law is generally understood as the paradigmatic example of property-rule protection: an owner can obtain an injunction against the trespasser and have him removed from her land. The property-rule protection enjoyed by the owner protects her right to exclude others and to set the price for the use of her property. However, the property-rule protection only exists ex ante: it avails only against imminent or ongoing trespasses. Ex post, after a trespass ends, the owner can only recover compensation measured by the market value of the unauthorized use, i.e., the going …

Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage Of Science And Law, Susan Haack

Law and Contemporary Problems

There haven't always been scientific witnesses: in fact, there haven't always been witnesses. In early medieval times, courts relied on tests by oath, ordeal, and sometimes by combat. Here, Haack provides a brief historical background to the use of scientific experts in law and then proceeds to discuss in greater detail the values underlying scientific inquiry, the uncertainty in the quest of knowledge and understanding, and the methods by which consensus is reached, even if that consensus is always tentative. She then contrasts scientific inquiry with the law's quest for "truth" in the courtroom and, particularly, the normative and temporal …

The Special Threat Of Informants To The Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing "First Drafts," Recording Incentives, And Taking A Fresh Look At The Evidence, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Two Ways To Think About The Punishment Of Corporations, Albert Alschuler

Faculty Working Papers

This article compares the criminal punishment of corporations in the twenty-first century with two ancient legal practices—deodand (the punishment of animals and objects that have produced harm) and frankpledge (the punishment of all members of a group when one member of the group has avoided apprehension for a crime). It argues that corporate criminal punishment is a mistake but that viewing it as frankpledge is less ridiculous than viewing it as deodand. The article considers the implications of the choice between these concepts for standards of corporate guilt and for the sentencing of corporate offenders. After a brief historical description …

How Does Science Come To Speak In The Courts? Citations Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts, And Reasoning, Charles Bazerman

Law and Contemporary Problems

Citations, in their highly conventionalized forms, visibly indicate each texts explicit use of the prior literature that embodies the knowledge and contentions of its field. This relation to prior texts has been called intertextuality in literary and literacy studies. Here, Bazerman discusses the citation practices and intertextuality in science and the law in theoretical and historical perspective, and considers the intersection of science and law by identifying the judicial rules that limit and shape the role of scientific literature in court proceedings. He emphasizes that from the historical and theoretical analysis, it is clear that, in the US, judicial reasoning …

Taking A Stand On Taking The Stand: The Effect Of A Prior Criminal Record On The Decision To Testify And On Trial Outcomes, Theodore Eisenberg, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article uses unique data from over 300 criminal trials in four large counties to study the relations between the existence of a prior criminal record and defendants testifying at trial, between testifying at trial and juries' learning about a criminal record, and between juries' learning about a criminal record and their decisions to convict or acquit. Sixty percent of defendants without criminal records testified compared to 45 percent with criminal records. For testifying defendants with criminal records, juries learned of those records in about half the cases. Juries rarely learned about criminal records unless defendants testified. After controlling for …

Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The essay maintains that the WTO Appellate Body's concepts and terminology concerning a claimant's burden of proof-the concepts of prima facie case, presumption, and burden shifting-are disturbingly ambiguous and potentially misleading. This is so whether one thinks of these terms from either a common law or a civil law perspective. In the face of the current ambiguity, a future panel might understand the AB's prima facie case concept to require an overwhelming level of proof from the claimant. On the other hand, a different panel might allow a rather weak level of claimant's proof to meet the prima facie requirement, …

Electronically Stored Information: A Primer For Litigators, Jules Epstein

Jules Epstein

No abstract provided.

Counsel And Confrontation, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

Responding to the Court’s recent reworking of its confrontation jurisprudence, I argue that, under the Anglo-American common-law principles that the Confrontation Clause now incorporates, defendants are not entitled to an attorney’s assistance when interrogating witnesses prior to trial. Although the Assistance of Counsel Clause and the Due Process Clauses will pick up the slack in many cases, I contend that there are other instances in which the Constitution now leaves unrepresented defendants responsible for cross-examining witnesses on their own. I suggest that legislative reform may be necessary to ameliorate the new constitutional landscape’s deficiencies.

Neuroscientific Evidence In The Law: Fascinating Science But To Layment It's Still Phrenology (Revised, 2009), John M. Mccarthy

John M McCarthy

ABSTRACT

Neuroscientific Evidence in the Law:

Fascinating Science, but to laymen it's still phrenology

by

John M. McCarthy

Cognitive neuroscience is one of biology's most exciting specialties, but outside of laboratories, "neuroscience" is not "science" but something else. The article examines what it is. This bears on today's burgeoning "neuro-" applications in the law, including "neuroethics". The article argues that neuroscientific findings should be excluded today from legal contexts, because valid scientific findings do not exist concerning the complex mental performances pertinent to adjudication.

Laymen and neuroscientists embrace a theoretical paradigm that is over two centuries old: that a biological …

Rape, Feminism, And The War On Crime, Aya Gruber

Aya Gruber

Over the past several years, feminism has been increasingly associated with crime control and the incarceration of men. In apparent lock step with the movement of the American penal system, feminists have advocated a host of reforms to strengthen state power to punish gender-based crimes. In the rape context, this effort has produced mixed results. Sexual assault laws that adopt prevailing views of criminality and victimhood, such as predator laws, enjoy great popularity. However, reforms that target the difficulties of date rape prosecutions and seek to counter gender norms, such as rape shield and affirmative consent laws, are controversial, sporadically-implemented, …

Cross-Examining Film, Jessica M. Silbey

Jessica Silbey

The Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris holds that a Georgia police officer did not violate a fleeing suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he caused the suspect's car to crash. The court's decision relies almost entirely on the filmed version of the high-speed police chase taken from a “dash-cam,” a video camera mounted on the dashboard of the pursuing police cruiser. The Supreme Court said that in light of the contrary stories told by the opposing parties to the lawsuit, the only story to be believed was that told by the video. In Scott v. Harris, the court fell …

A Witness To Justice, Jessica M. Silbey

Jessica Silbey

In the 1988 film The Accused, a young woman named Sarah Tobias is gang raped on a pinball machine by three men while a crowded bar watches. The rapists cut a deal with the prosecutor. Sarah's outrage at the deal convinces the assistant district attorney to prosecute members of the crowd that cheered on and encouraged the rape. This film shows how Sarah Tobias, a woman with little means and less experience, intuits that according to the law rape victims are incredible witnesses to their own victimization. The film goes on to critique what the "right" kind of witness would …

Eyewitness Corroboration Requirements As Protections Against Wrongful Conviction: The Hidden Questions, David Crump

David Crump

Several commentators have suggested the adoption of a rule requiring corroboration of eyewitness identification testimony. The concern underlying this proposal has merit, because misidentifications probably account for the largest share of erroneous convictions. But no one has catalogued the possible side effects of such a rule. Would the proposal have bad effects on the control of crime? Would it produce disproportionate acquittals in some crime categories, so that it might amount to a “Violent Predator’s Relief Act”? Would it result in even greater oppression of innocent people? What do the proponents mean by “corroboration,” anyway? What corroboration should be deemed …

We Don’T Want To Hear It: Psychology, Literature And The Narrative Model Of Judging, Kenworthey Bilz

Kenworthey Bilz

The “narrative” model of legal judging argues that legal decision makers both do and should render judgments by assembling sensible sto-ries out of evidence (as opposed to using Bayesian-type, linear models). This model is usually understood to demand that before one may judge a situation, one must give the parties the opportunity to tell their story in a manner that invites, or at least allows, empathy from the judger. This Article refers to this as the “inclusionary approach” to the narrative model of judging. Using psychological research in emotions and perspective-taking and the more intuitive techniques of literary criticism, this …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals And The Local Construction Of Reliability, Robert R. Robinson

Robert R Robinson

Scholars considering how expert testimony will fare under Daubert often apply the four dicta referenced by Justice Blackmun (testing, peer-review, error rate, and general acceptance) to determine whether such testimony will be admissible. In this article I critique this approach, contending that admissibility decisions cannot be adequately predicted by Daubert itself. Daubert has no clear legal rule for judges to apply, has no cognizable position on the degree of scrutiny expert testimony should face, and has no clear stance—even given the dicta—on what constitutes “good science.” When combined with the relative autonomy trial judges possess in making admissibility decisions, Daubert’s …

Rounding Up The Usual Suspects: A Logical And Legal Analysis Of Dna Trawling Cases, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

Courts are beginning to confront a problem that has divided the scientific community - whether identifying a defendant by fishing through a database of DNA types to find a match to a crime-scene sample reduces the significance of a match. For years, the problem seemed academic. Now that the U.S. has more than five million DNA profiles from convicted offenders and suspects in a national, computer-searchable database, the question has assumed more urgency. Increasingly, individuals are being charged with crimes as a result of a match between their recorded profile and the DNA from a victim or scene of a …