Evidence Commons^™

A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold

Michael Evan Gold

The purpose of this article is to establish a principled basis for restraint of judicial lawmaking. The principle is that all findings of fact, whether of legislative or adjudicative facts, must be based on evidence in the record of a case. This principle is grounded in moral philosophy. I will begin with a discussion of the relevant aspect of moral philosophy, then state and defend the principle, and finally apply it to a line of cases.

The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill

Timothy P. O'Neill

No abstract provided.

Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr

Julia Simon-Kerr

This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that …

The New Doctrinalism: Implications For Evidence Theory, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

This Article revisits and refines the organizing principles of evidence law: case specificity, cost minimization, and equal best. These three principles explain and justify all admissibility and sufficiency requirements of the law of evidence. The case-specificity principle requires that factfinders base their decisions on the relative plausibility of the stories describing the parties’ entitlement–accountability relationship. The cost-minimization principle demands that factfinders minimize the cost of errors and the cost of avoiding errors as a total sum. The equal-best principle mandates that factfinders afford every person the maximal feasible protection against risk of error while equalizing that protection across the board. …

Re-Examining Hearsay Under The Federal Rules: Some Method For The Madness, Paul S. Milich

Paul Milich

No abstract provided.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …

A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Julia Simon-Kerr, Anthony Casey

Julia Simon-Kerr

Complex valuations of assets, companies, government programs, damages, and the like cannot be done without expertise, yet judges routinely pick an arbitrary value that falls somewhere between the extreme numbers suggested by competing experts. This creates costly uncertainty and undermines the legitimacy of the court. Proposals to remedy this well-­‐‑recognized difficulty have become increasingly convoluted. As a result, no solution has been effectively adopted and the problem persists. This article suggests that the valuation dilemma stems from a misconception of the inquiry involved. Courts have treated valuation as its own special type of inquiry distinct from traditional fact finding. We …

The Proscription Of Incorporated Law Practices (Ilps) In Nigeria: The Legal And Constitutional Issues Arising, Abdullahi Saliu Ishola

Abdullahi Saliu Ishola

This paper critically examines the legality and constitutionality of the provision of Rule 5 sub-rule (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 (the Rules), prohibiting the practice of law in Nigeria as a corporation. The appraisal is done on the scales of the provisions of Sections 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended (the Constitution), providing for rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly and freedom from discrimination, respectively; on one hand, and, Section 18 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), allowing any two or …

Thinking Like Thinkers: Is The Art And Discipline Of An "Attitude Of Suspended Conclusion" Lost On Lawyers?, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

In his 1910 book, How We Think, John Dewey proclaimed that “the most important factor in the training of good mental habits consists in acquainting the attitude of suspended conclusion. . .” This Article explores that insight and describes its meaning and significance in the enterprise of thinking generally and its importance in law school education specifically. It posits that the law would be best served if lawyers think like thinkers and adopt an attitude of suspended conclusion in their problem solving affairs. Only when conclusion is suspended is there space for the exploration of the subject at hand. The …

The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow Kleinhaus

Suzanne Darrow Kleinhaus

No abstract provided.

Requirements Of A Valid Islamic Marriage Vis-À-Vis Requirements Of A Valid Customary Marriage In Nigeria, Olanike Sekinat Odewale Mrs

Olanike Sekinat Adelakun

Sati, Louise Harmon

Louise Harmon

No abstract provided.

The Harvest, Louise Harmon

Louise Harmon

No abstract provided.

Malexandertalet: Ett Tal - Två Situationer, Matilda Arvidsson

Dr Matilda Arvidsson

In this article the court speech delivered by the "Malexander widow", Anneli Ljungberg, is analysed in terms of Lloyd Bitzers "rhetorical situation" and found to work within two different and simultaneous rhetorical situations. Thus, the article shows how a court speech might break with rhetorical conventions of one rhetorical situation because of the conventions governing the other and simultaneously ongoing rhetorical situation.