Evidence Commons^™

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them.

So how do we get there?

Proof At The Salem Witch Trials, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

As of the writing of this article, President Donald Trump's tweets have included roughly 400 references to "witch hunts." In a sense, this is unsurprising. The Salem witch trials have a special place in our national identity and vocabulary. Most Americans understand the reference, even if they know few of the historical details. And the phrase "witch hunt" serves as a useful shorthand for any frenzied chase after something that does not exist. The Salem trials also inspire a peculiar fascination: Perhaps no other site of deadly mass hysteria has become a major tourist destination.

Still, most practicing litigators probably …

King Arthur Confronts Twiqy Pleading, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Rule 25 of the 1912 Equity Rules stated that "it shall be sufficient that a bill in equity shall contain ... a short and simple statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff asks relief, omitting any mere statement of evidence." Not mere conclusions, not evidence, but "ultimate facts." And, at that, not facts "constituting the cause of action." The bare words of Rule 25 could mean something quite different to a twenty-first-century audience than they meant to a twentieth-century audience. But they may serve as a foil to the challenge framed by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic …

Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin

Articles

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …

The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that experts and scientific evidence were causing problems then just as they are causing problems now. I do not think that Daubert, Kumho Tire, or any change in a rule of evidence will keep expert scientific testimony from being a difficult area for the legal system. Yet we must still ask: "What are the best terms on which to deal with scientific experts, and how can weimprove the system?"

Make-Believe: The Rules Excluding Evidence Of Character And Liability Insurance (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence includes several rules that prohibit the use of specified types of information as evidence of particular propositions. Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (but admissible to show ownership, control, et cetera),' settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability (but admissible to show bias or prejudice, or for other purposes),2 and so forth. Any exclusion of relevant evidence involves some distortion of reality in the sense that the picture presented to the trier of fact includes less information than the available total. That will be true whether the evidence is kept …

Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

In the infancy of the jury trial, there were no witnesses. The jury was self-informing. Members of the jury were drawn from the community. It was expected that they would know, either firsthand or on the basis of what they had heard, the true facts of any disputed incident, and they were gathered together to say what those facts were. Ronald Allen and Joseph Miller, in their insightful paper, see the ideal of the self-informing jury as very much alive today. Allen and Miller tell us that jurors ideally should experience firsthand the factual information needed to arrive at rational …

Standards Of Persuasion And The Distinction Between Fact And Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The invitation to respond in these pages to Gary Lawson's very interesting article, Proving the Law, was tempting enough. But what made it irresistible was Professor Lawson's comment that he is "addressing, with a brevity that borders on the irresponsible, subjects well beyond [his] depth." Now, that's the kind of debate I really like. Let me jump right in. A principal question raised by Lawson, which I find quite interesting, may be phrased in general, and purposefully ambiguous, terms as follows: Before an actor treats a proposition as a valid2 proposition of law, what standard of persuasion should that proposition …

Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …

What Is This Thing Called Hearsay?, John W. Reed

Articles

This article is based on an address delivered at the 1956 Advocacy Institute at the University of Michigan. A re-examination of elementary principles, the discussion proceeds on the express assumption that much of the uncertainty and confusion in usa of the hearsay rule is unnecessary because it is due to failure to recall and employ these principles.

Examination Of The Medical Expert, Harry B. Hutchins

Articles

The expert witness differs essentially from the ordinary witness in at least two particulars; first, in that the field of his testimony is outside the range of ordinary knowledge and experience; and, secondly, in that his testimony in the great majority of cases is in the form of opinions or conclusions that are deemed necessary for the proper guidance of the jury. It goes without saying that the 'lawyer who undertakes the examination of the expert should have such familiarity with the subject of inquiry as will enable him to develop it through the expert logically and clearly, but unfortunately …

The Physician As An Expert, Harry B. Hutchins

Articles

Expert evidence is evidence of a scientific or technical character in regard to a matter that is outside the domain of ordinary experience and knowledge. The evidence is usually in the form of opinions or conclusions based upon facts that for the purposes of an opinion are assumed to be true, although it may be in regard to scientific facts. The expert is one who has had special training or opportunities in a particular subject that the ordinary witness has not enjoyed, and who has thereby acquired certain habits of judgment.that render his explanations and opinions in the field of …