Law Commons^™

Something Bad In Your Briefs, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In a profession heavily driven by writing, plagiarism is an ethical issue that plagues the legal community. The legal profession generally views plagiarism as unethical, but often sends mixed messages by condemning it in some settings, but not others. In this short Commentary, Professor Underwood discusses the ethical implications of plagiarism in legal writing.

Ringers Revisited, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this short essay, Professor Underwood addresses an important development in the law dealing with eyewitness testimony and the New Jersey case of State v. Henderson. He gets at the subject by looking back to a 1950s television play starring fellow Kentucky resident, William Shatner. However, in this particular instance, William Shatner would not change the world.

Following The Rules: Exclusion Of Witness, Sequestration, And No-Consultation Orders, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this Article, Professor Underwood discusses the varying application of Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides for the exclusion of witnesses. He explains that varying application of Rule 615 and state evidence rules following Rule 615's language creates misunderstandings at trial. Thus, it is important to know not only the federal and local rules but also the "way things are done" in a particular court.

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.

Evaluating Scientific And Forensic Evidence, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Professor Underwood offers a critique of the present state of scientific and forensic evidence. In the context of discussing four challenges to the field, the author arms the practitioner with strategies and tactics for making effective use of scientific and forensic testimony.

Summary Adjudication In United States Civil Procedure, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article uses one of the high profile mass tort cases of recent decades, the complex silicone gel-filled breast implant products liability litigation, to evaluate summary adjudication measures. Recognizing that not all claims filed are complex tort claims (just the most interesting ones), where commercial claims present the opportunity for use of summary proceedings, those will be discussed as well, particularly regarding mechanisms by which security for a creditor-plaintiffs claim can be obtained prior to a favorable verdict.

While preparing this Report, it became clear that the author has a particular view of what constitutes a "summary adjudication" procedure, but …

"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.

Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Procedure, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Many important criminal procedure cases were decided by the Kentucky appellate courts during the Survey period-too many to permit meaningful comment on each case. The author has selected those criminal procedure cases he feels are most significant and has not attempted to comment on penal code cases, most of which involve matters of criminal law.

Curbing Litigation Abuses: Judicial Control Of Adversary Ethics—The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct And Proposed Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article addresses the effectiveness of recent developments and proposals related to abusive litigation, and discusses them in the context of recent opinions illustrating the power of the trial judge to control the excesses of the adversary system. It rejects the countersuit as a time-consuming and costly means of controlling litigation abuses, and concludes that “tinkering changes” in the rules of procedure cannot bring about true reform. It is urged here that the burden resulting from abuse of litigation can only be relieved by changes which foster stronger judicial control of adversarial ethics, and greater judicial involvement in the pretrial …

Kentucky Law Survey: Criminal Rules, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In May 1978 the Kentucky Supreme Court set up a Criminal Rules Revision Committee (Advisory Committee) to study Kentucky's Rules of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of the Advisory Committee was to make recommendations to the Judicial Council. The committee met sixteen times between July 1978 and July 1980, and at the conclusion of its study, submitted a comprehensive revision of the rules of criminal procedure to the judicial council. These proposed revisions went beyond mere amendment of the existing rules. The Advisory Committee drew heavily from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and ultimately proposed extensive changes in plea bargaining, …

Voir Dire In Kentucky: An Empirical Study Of Voir Dire In Kentucky Circuit Courts, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Voir dire is the stage of a jury trial at which prospective jurors are questioned under oath by court or counsel to determine their suitability as jurors in the case to be tried. Kentucky's high court has repeatedly recognized the importance of voir dire to the exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges.

The trial judge's wide discretion in voir dire, however, necessarily makes a review of appellate decisions of minimal assistance in ascertaining what actually occurs during this important phase of a jury trial. Published opinions provide little guidance in this area; information about voir dire must come from a …

Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ramifications of Wainwright v. Sykes, a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The broad question before the Court in Sykes concerned the extent to which state prisoners should have access to federal court by use of the writ of habeas corpus. The narrow issue before the Court concerned the impact on a prisoner's claim for habeas relief of procedural defaults (such as a failure to object to evidence, a failure to perfect an appeal, etc.) that occur in the state proceeding under attack. In considering these important issues Justice …