Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence

Series

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication

Articles 1 - 30 of 48

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold Jan 2019

A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold

Articles and Chapters

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.


Forensic Science: Complex Admissibility Standard For Scientific Evidence And Expert Witness's Testimony, Md Wahidur Rahman, Marissa J. Moran Dec 2018

Forensic Science: Complex Admissibility Standard For Scientific Evidence And Expert Witness's Testimony, Md Wahidur Rahman, Marissa J. Moran

Publications and Research

Modern science forces the world to accept new theories and invention. Science has invented several tools, which are used in the legal system to dispute criminal cases. Scientific evidence and expert witness testimony have weight in the courtroom because those are scientifically proved to be true. Even though there are few case laws and Federal rule of evidence 1975, still the admissibility standard is complex which may lead injustice.

This article examines the Federal rule of evidence, case laws and scholars’ opinion to address the complexity of the admissibility standard of scientific evidence and expert testimony. The first legal question ...


The Triangle Of Law And The Role Of Evidence In Class Action Litigation, Jonah B. Gelbach Jan 2017

The Triangle Of Law And The Role Of Evidence In Class Action Litigation, Jonah B. Gelbach

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a "donning and doffing" case brought under Iowa state law incorporating the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay provisions, the petitioners asked the Supreme Court to reject the use of statistical evidence in Rule 23(b)(3) class certification. To its great credit, the Court refused. In its majority opinion, the Court cited both the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal common law interpreting the FLSA. In this paper, I take a moderately deep dive into the facts of the case, and the three opinions penned by Justice Kennedy (for the Court), Chief Justice ...


Proportionality And The Social Benefits Of Discovery: Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind?, Stephen B. Burbank Jan 2015

Proportionality And The Social Benefits Of Discovery: Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind?, Stephen B. Burbank

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In this short essay, based on remarks delivered at the 2015 meeting of the AALS Section of Litigation, I use a recent paper by Gelbach and Kobayashi to highlight the risk that, in assessing the proportionality of proposed discovery under the 2015 amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal judges will privilege costs over benefits, and private over public interests. The risk arises from the temptation to focus on (1) the interests of those who are present to the detriment of the interests of those who are absent (“the availability heuristic”), and (2) variables that ...


Ambiguous-Purpose Statements Of Children And Other Victims Of Abuse Under The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein Jan 2015

Ambiguous-Purpose Statements Of Children And Other Victims Of Abuse Under The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The author examines in this paper two kinds of ambiguous-purpose out-of-court statements that are especially problematic under current Confrontation law--problematic in ways that we hope will be solved directly or indirectly by the Supreme Court when it renders its decision in Ohio v. Clark. The statements he examines are:

(1) Statements made by abused children concerning their abuse, for example to police, physicians, teachers, welfare workers, baby sitters, or family members, some of whom may be under a legal duty to report suspected abuse to legal authorities. At least some of these statements will be directly addressed by the Court ...


Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein Mar 2014

Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become ...


The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas Jan 2014

The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Response Essay: Some Observations On Professor Schwartz's "Foundation" Theory Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein Jan 2012

Response Essay: Some Observations On Professor Schwartz's "Foundation" Theory Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor David Schwartz's A Foundation Theory of Evidence posits an intriguing new way to look at Evidence. It asserts that offered evidence must meet a tripartite requirement before it can be relevant. The tripartite requirement is that the evidence must be "case-specific, assertive, and probably true." His shorthand for the tripartite requirement is that evidence must be "well founded." Hence, he calls his theory the "foundation theory of evidence" and claims this foundation notion is so central to evidence law that it eclipses in importance even relevance itself. The tripartite requirement inheres in the very concept of evidence and ...


What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns Jan 2011

What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

The number of trials continues to decline andfederal civil trials have almost completely disappeared. This essay attempts to address the significance of this loss, to answer the obvious question, "So what?" It argues against taking a resigned or complacent attitude toward an important problem for our public culture. It presents a short description of the trial's internal structure, recounts different sorts of explanations, and offers an inventory of the kinds of wounds this development would inflict.


The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns Jan 2009

The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

This short essay is a summary of my assessment of the meaning of the "vanishing trial" phenomenon. It addresses the obvious question: "So what?" It first briefly reviews the evidence of the trial's decline. It then sets out the steps necessary to understand the political and social signficance of our vastly reducing the trial's importance among our modes of social ordering. The essay serves as the Introduction to a book, The Death of the American Trial, soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press.


The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia Jones Jan 2009

The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia Jones

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriate sanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutional claims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable “bad faith” standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other “access to evidence” violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the “access to evidence ...


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 Jan 2009

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

Faculty Scholarship

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 overlooked ...


Peer Review And Publication: Lessons For Lawyers, Susan Haack Jan 2007

Peer Review And Publication: Lessons For Lawyers, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.


Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, And The American Way, Susan Haack Jan 2004

Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, And The American Way, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.


Fifteen Years After The Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective And Just Narcotics Sentencing Perspectives On The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And Mandatory Sentencing, Ian Weinstein Jan 2003

Fifteen Years After The Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective And Just Narcotics Sentencing Perspectives On The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And Mandatory Sentencing, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

Federal criminal sentencing has changed dramatically since 1988. Fifteen years ago, judges determined if and for how long a defendant would go to jail. Since that time, changes in substantive federal criminal statutes, particularly the passage of an array of mandatory minimum penalties and the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines, have limited significantly judicial sentencing power and have remade federal sentencing and federal criminal practice. The results of these changes are significantly longer federal prison sentences, as was the intent of these reforms, and the emergence of federal prosecutors as the key players in sentencing. Yet, at the same ...


The Talmudic Rule Against Self-Incrimination And The American Exclusionary Rule: A Societal Prohibition Versus An Affirmative Individual Right, Suzanne Darrow Kleinhaus Jan 2001

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

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Naturalized Epistemology And The Critique Of Evidence Theory, Dale A. Nance Jan 2001

Naturalized Epistemology And The Critique Of Evidence Theory, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In this article I give a mixed review Allen and Leiter’s naturalized epistemology theory of evidence. I applaud their focus on naturalized epistemology, but I question the claims that they argue follow from it. In some ways, my reaction is that they have not gone far enough in pressing its implications, and I attempt to suggest how further progress might be made along this path. On the whole, I conclude that the antipathy toward algrithms expressed by Allen and Leiter is misplaced.


Joseph In Lawyerland, Robin West Jan 2001

Joseph In Lawyerland, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As Alice wanders through Wonderland in an unreal space in real time-a dream-learning backward truths from illogical creatures who speak in paradoxes, so Joseph figuratively wanders through lawyerland in an unreal time, but in a very real space-Manhattan-conversing with his thinly fictionalized friends, all of whom happen to be lawyers, about their lives and practices in law. As Joseph's lawyers talk with him about the law they practice, they uncover, through White Rabbit and Cheshire Cat-like illogical precision, a chaotic, unkempt, unconscionably reckless, often cruel, and sometimes pathological legal wilderness. The legal terrain these lawyers occupy is not an ...


Regulating The Market For Snitches , Ian Weinstein Jan 1999

Regulating The Market For Snitches , Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

These are boom times for the sellers and buyers of cooperation in the federal criminal justice system. While prosecutors have always welcomed the assistance of snitches, tougher federal sentencing laws have led to a significant increase in cooperation as more defendants try to provide "substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person," to have some chance of receiving a significant sentence reduction. In 1996 one of every five defendants sentenced in the federal courts won mitigation by providing substantial assistance. Many more defendants tried but failed to close the deal. The overheated cooperation market is creating serious problems ...


The Evidentiary Theory Of Blackmail: Taking Motives Seriously, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 1998

The Evidentiary Theory Of Blackmail: Taking Motives Seriously, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Substantial Assistance And Sentence Severity: Is There A Correlation Substantial Assistance, Ian Weinstein Jan 1998

Substantial Assistance And Sentence Severity: Is There A Correlation Substantial Assistance, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

How much more severe are sentences imposed in districts with low substantial assistance rates than those in which the rate is very high? In the aggregate, not at all. At first blush this may puzzle readers because substantial assistance (SA) departures are very unevenly distributed across districts and SA accounts for nearly two-thirds of all downward departures, almost 7,900 of the 12,000 in fiscal 1996. Although this pattern could result in gross disparities among districts, my analysis of inter-district sentencing patterns reveals no statistically significant correlation between the rate of SA departures and the average length of sentences ...


Towards A (Bayesian) Convergence?, Richard D. Friedman Jan 1997

Towards A (Bayesian) Convergence?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

If I understand them correctly, several leading Bayesioskeptics (Allen, Callen, Stein) acknowledge - with varying degrees of specificity and varying degrees of grudgingness - that standard probability theory can be useful as an analytical tool in considering evidentiary doctrines and the probative value of evidentiary items.


Answering The Bayesioskeptical Challenge, Richard D. Friedman Jan 1997

Answering The Bayesioskeptical Challenge, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In recent years, some scholars of evidence, myself among them, have made active use of subjective probability theory - what is sometimes referred to as Bayesianism - in thinking about issues and problems related to the law of evidence. But, at the same time, this use has been challenged to various degrees and in various ways by scholars to whom I shall apply the collective, if somewhat misleading, label of Bayesioskeptics. I present this brief paper to defend this use of probability theory, and to discuss what I believe is its proper role in discourse about evidentiary issues.


That's My Story And I'M Stickin' To It: The Jury As Fifth Business In The Trial Of O.J. Simpson And Other Matters, Marianne Wesson Jan 1996

That's My Story And I'M Stickin' To It: The Jury As Fifth Business In The Trial Of O.J. Simpson And Other Matters, Marianne Wesson

Articles

No abstract provided.


Post-Modern Hearsay Reform: The Importance Of Complexity, Christopher B. Mueller Jan 1992

Post-Modern Hearsay Reform: The Importance Of Complexity, Christopher B. Mueller

Articles

No abstract provided.


The Federal Rules Of Evidence After Sixteen Years -- The Effect Of "Plain Meaning" Jurisprudence, The Need For An Advisory Committee On The Rules Of Evidence, And Suggestions For Selective Revision Of The Rules, Aviva A. Orenstein, Edward R. Becker Jan 1992

The Federal Rules Of Evidence After Sixteen Years -- The Effect Of "Plain Meaning" Jurisprudence, The Need For An Advisory Committee On The Rules Of Evidence, And Suggestions For Selective Revision Of The Rules, Aviva A. Orenstein, Edward R. Becker

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.


Re-Examining Hearsay Under The Federal Rules: Some Method For The Madness, Paul S. Milich Jan 1991

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

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.


The Mythic Difficulty In Proving A Negative, Kevin W. Saunders Jan 1985

The Mythic Difficulty In Proving A Negative, Kevin W. Saunders

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Jurisprudence Of The Burger Court: A Reading Of Michigan V. Long, Jan Ginter Deutsch Jan 1985

The Jurisprudence Of The Burger Court: A Reading Of Michigan V. Long, Jan Ginter Deutsch

Faculty Scholarship Series

Law is currently perceived by many as a set of technicalities used to keep criminals out of jail. Even those lawyers opposed to the Warren Court expansion of constitutional rights see such a view as an oversimplification, a shibboleth - a shibboleth, how­ ever, to which the facts in Michigan v. Long 1 seem tailor-made.

One night, in a rural area, a car was travelling erratically and at excessive speed. It swerved into a ditch. Police officers stopped to investigate. The car's occupant, who was at the rear of the car, and "appeared to be under the influence of something ...


The Federal Coconspirator Exception: Action, Assertion, And Hearsay, Christopher B. Mueller Jan 1984

The Federal Coconspirator Exception: Action, Assertion, And Hearsay, Christopher B. Mueller

Articles

No abstract provided.