Evidence Commons^™

Speeding In Reverse: An Anecdotal View Of Why Victim Impact Testimony Should Not Be Driving Capital Prosecutions, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Social Science And The Courts: The Role Of Amicus Curiae Briefs, Ronald G. Roesch, Stephen L. Golding, Valerie P. Hans, N. Dickon Reppucci

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or "friend of the court" briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief in Maryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by …

Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work.

Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …