Evidence Commons^™

The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance To The Daubert Revolution, David E. Bernstein

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article reviews the history of the evolution of the rules for the admissibility of expert testimony since the 1980s, the revolutionary nature of what ultimately emerged, and the consistent efforts by recalcitrant judges to stop or roll back the changes, even after Rule 702 was amended to explicitly incorporate a strict interpretation of those changes.

Part I reviews the law of expert testimony through the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision. Critics had charged for decades that the adversarial system was a failure with regard to expert testimony. Parties to litigation, they argued, often presented expert testimony of dubious validity because …

Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxviii—Disclosure Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits

Hon. Gerald Lebovits

No abstract provided.

Jailhouse Informants, Robert M. Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

Schultz V. Akzo Nobel Paints: “The Rest Of The Story” Reveals Limited Impact Of Expert Testimony Decision, Richard O. Faulk

Richard Faulk

Certainly, a number of lawyers from both sides of the bar believe that the Schultz decision is important. A review of the record in Schultz, however, reveals a relatively easy explanation for the decision—one that undermines its value as precedent. To understand why this is so, we must go back to the district court’s decision to grant Akzo Nobel’s motion for summary judgment and, with apologies to Paul Harvey, appreciate the “rest of the story.”

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellant, James Townsend V. Midland Funding, Llc, Stuart Robert Cohen, Peter A. Holland

Court Briefs

The Consumer Protection Clinic of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, filed a Motion to Participate and an Amicus Brief in the case of Townsend v. Midland Funding, LLC. The case presents the question of whether documents created by third party predecessors in interest—usually a bank—may be admitted into evidence when a debt buyer plaintiff does not demonstrate personal knowledge regarding any of the foundational elements which would be required to admit the documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Amici urge the Court to overturn the lower court, and hold that a …

Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxvi—Notices To Admit Continued, Gerald Lebovits

Hon. Gerald Lebovits

No abstract provided.

Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxv—Notices To Admit, Gerald Lebovits

Hon. Gerald Lebovits

No abstract provided.

Book Review: Errol Morris, “A Wilderness Of Error”: Provocative But Unpersuasive, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxiv—Summary-Judgment Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits

Hon. Gerald Lebovits

No abstract provided.

When Dicta Attacks: Elliott V. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Joanna E. Barnes

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Making Horses Drink: Conceptual Change Theory And Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Liesa L. Richter

Liesa L. Richter

No abstract provided.

Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter

Liesa L. Richter

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Aviation Accident Reports By Civil Litigants: The Historical Development Of 49 U.S.C. Section 1441(E), Walter A. T. Welch Jr., John E. Faulk

Pepperdine Law Review

When aviation accidents occur, the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an investigation to determine the conditions, circumstances, and ultimately the probable cause of the accident. There is a federal statutory privilege which renders these reports, as well as testimony from the attending investigator, inadmissible as evidence in any suit or action arising from the accident. However, certain judicially created exceptions have arisen which permit portions of the report and certain investigator testimony to be admitted into evidence. The authors delineate and analyze these exceptions as they discuss the trend toward increased report and testimony admissibility. The authors conclude with a …

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof.

I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …

The Discovery And Use Of Computerized Information: An Examination Of Current Approaches, Richard M. Long

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent years, the legal profession has run head on into the increasing use of computers and computerized information. Discovery and evidentiary rules developed to deal with written documentation may not be flexible enough to adequately cover this relatively new method of storing information. This comment examines various methods by which courts have attempted to deal with discovery and evidentiary problems involving computerized information, and suggests certain areas that should be explored in supporting or attacking the credibility of such information.

The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Narrative, Truth, And Trial, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

This Article critically evaluates the relationship between constructing narratives and achieving factual accuracy at trials. The story model of adjudication— according to which jurors process testimony by organizing it into competing narratives—has gained wide acceptance in the descriptive work of social scientists and currency in the courtroom, but it has received little close attention from legal theorists. The Article begins with a discussion of the meaning of narrative and its function at trial. It argues that the story model is incomplete, and that “legal truth” emerges from a hybrid of narrative and other means of inquiry. As a result, trials …

Trial By Preview, Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

It has been an obsession of modern civil procedure to design ways to reveal more before trial about what will happen during trial. Litigants today, as a matter of course, are made to preview the evidence they will use. This practice is celebrated because standard theory says it should induce the parties to settle; why incur the expenses of trial, if everyone knows what will happen? Rarely noted, however, is one complication: The impact of previewing the evidence is intertwined with how well the parties know their future audience-that is, the judge or the jury who will be the finder …

Evidence, Probability, And The Burden Of Proof, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

This Article analyzes the probabilistic and epistemological underpinnings of the burden-of-proof doctrine. We show that this doctrine is best understood as instructing factfinders to determine which of the parties’ conflicting stories makes most sense in terms of coherence, consilience, causality, and evidential coverage. By applying this method, factfinders should try—and will often succeed—to establish the truth, rather than a statistical surrogate of the truth, while securing the appropriate allocation of the risk of error. Descriptively, we argue that this understanding of the doctrine—the “relative plausibility theory”—corresponds to our courts’ practice. Prescriptively, we argue that the relative-plausibility method is operationally superior …