Evidence Commons^™

Evidence, John E. Hall Jr., W. Scott Henwood, Alex Battey

Mercer Law Review

This year's Survey of evidence finds us in a unique position. The overhaul of the Georgia Evidence Code (Evidence Code) went into effect on January 1, 2013. Therefore, appellate cases continue to emerge that interpret and apply the former rules, providing insight and raising questions about how the new rules have changed the face of evidence in Georgia. This Survey highlights cases decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013, that illustrate this tension between the old and new rules of evidence. These cases are presented alongside other …

Character, Liberalism, And The Protean Culture Of Evidence Law, Daniel D. Blinka

Seattle University Law Review

It is time to rethink character evidence. Long notorious as the most frequently litigated evidence issue, character doctrine plagues courts, trial lawyers, and law students with its infamously “grotesque” array of nonsensical rules, whimsical distinctions, and arcane procedures. Character is a calculation of social worth and value; it is the sum total of what others think of us, whether expressed as their own opinion or the collective opinions of many (reputation). Once we grasp that character is a social construct, we are in a better position to address some of the problems that plague evidence law. To provide needed clarity …

Is Expert Evidence Really Different?, Frederick Schauer, Barbara A. Spellman

Notre Dame Law Review

The problem with expert evidence is not the inappropriateness of the Daubert approach. The narrow focus on Daubert is misplaced. The real problem is with the more deeply entrenched view that expert evidence should be excluded under circumstances in which analogous non-expert evidence would be admitted. Daubert embodies the distinction between expert and non-expert evidence, but it is that very distinction, and not just Daubert, that is the problem. Daubert has indeed transformed modern evidence law, but perhaps it has awakened us to the need for a more profound transformation, one in which the very foundations of treating expert …

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 …

Supplementing The Record In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: What If The Evidence You Need Is Not In The Record?, George C. Harris, Xiang Li

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Adaptation And The Courtroom: Judging Climate Science, Kirsten Engel, Jonathan Overpeck

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Climate science is increasingly showing up in courtroom disputes over the duty to adapt to climate change. While judges play a critical role in evaluating scientific evidence, they are not apt to be familiar with the basic methods of climate science nor with the role played by peer review, publication, and training of climate scientists. This Article is an attempt to educate the bench and the bar on the basics of the discipline of climate science, which we contend is a distinct scientific discipline. We propose a series of principles to guide a judge’s evaluation of the reliability and weight …

Testifying Minors: Pre-Trial Strategies To Reduce Anxiety In Child Witnesses, Dawn Hathaway Thoman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Counsel's Control Over The Presentation Of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing, James Michael Blakemore

Michigan Law Review

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's assistance. A lawyer's assistance, however, sometimes interferes with a defendant's control over his case. As a result, the Supreme Court, over time, has had to delineate the spheres of authority that pertain to counsel and defendant respectively. The Court has not yet decisively assigned control over mitigating evidence to either counsel or defendant. This Note argues that counsel should control the presentation of mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. First, and most importantly, decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence are best characterized …

Argument And Courtroom Theatrics, Larry Geller, Peter Hemenway

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Impeachment In Administrative Cases, Calvin William Sharpe

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

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.

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.