Law Commons^™

The Incongruence Principle Of Evidence, Hillel Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Evidence law assumes that the meaning and value of information at trial is equal to the meaning and value of the same information in the real world. This premise underlies evidence policy, judicial applications of evidence law, and instructions to jurors for evaluating evidence. However, it is incorrect, and the law’s failure to recognize this hinders its aims of accuracy and equality.

In this article, I draw on fields outside of law - including Bayesian inference and cognitive psychology - to develop a model of evidence that describes how jurors combine new evidence with prior beliefs (or “priors”) to make …

Juries And The Criminal Constitution, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Judges are regularly deciding criminal constitutional issues based on changing societal values. For example, they are determining whether police officer conduct has violated society’s "reasonable expectations of privacy" under the Fourth Amendment and whether a criminal punishment fails to comport with the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" under the Eighth Amendment. Yet judges are not trained to assess societal values, nor do they, in assessing them, ordinarily consult data to determine what those values are. Instead, judges turn inward, to their own intuitions, morals, and values, to determine these matters. But judges’ internal …

The Missing Jury: The Neglected Role Of Juries In Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Determinations, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A recent study of death penalty cases has revealed that judges, who are ordinarily thought of as the guardians of criminal defendants’ constitutional rights, are more likely to impose harsher punishments than jurors. This may be unsettling in its own right, but it is especially concerning because judges are the individuals charged with determining whether punishments are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, and these determinations are supposed to be based on “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The study suggests that judges are out of step with society’s moral norms, …

Implementing Blakely, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

By declaring that sentence-enhancing facts must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington has raised a number of questions about the future of guided sentencing. One of these questions - only beginning to be explored - is what procedures would be needed in a system that both implements Blakely and preserves sentencing guidelines. What factors would be submitted to the jury and what instructions would be given? Would sentencing issues be presented to the jury in a separate hearing, distinct from trial? If so, what evidentiary rules would apply?

This paper …

Contracting With Tortfeasors: Mandatory Arbitration Clauses And Personal Injury Claims, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

People thinking about contractual arbitration clauses usually envision the resulting disputes as contractual in nature. However, there is also a group of cases in which the clauses are used to compel arbitration of personal injury claims. This article examines those cases, including the impact of the Federal Arbitration Act on their enforcement. Next, the article considers the ways in which these pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses can disturb the traditional values of procedural justice, contractual fairness, and the enforcement of tort-based duties. Finally, the article proposes changes in the law of arbitration and evaluates whether such changes are politically feasible.