Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Exclusionary rule (3)
- Admissibility (2)
- Arrest (2)
- Causation (2)
- Law reform (2)
-
- Liability (2)
- Negligence (2)
- Statistics (2)
- Testimony (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Warrant (2)
- Witnesses (2)
- Aggregation (1)
- Agnello v. United States (1)
- Appellate court (1)
- Appraisal (1)
- Assets (1)
- Bank v. Randell (1)
- Bayes' Law (1)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins (1)
- Broker (1)
- Bulk Sales Act (1)
- Burdens of proof (1)
- Burger (Warren) (1)
- Certainty (1)
- Child Abuse Evidence New Perspectives from Law Medicine Psychology and Statistics (1)
- Children (1)
- Clayton Act (1)
- Commission (1)
- Communicative rationality (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Fact-Finding Without Rules: Habermas's Communicative Rationality As A Framework For Judicial Assessments Of Digital Open-Source Information, Matthew Gillett
Fact-Finding Without Rules: Habermas's Communicative Rationality As A Framework For Judicial Assessments Of Digital Open-Source Information, Matthew Gillett
Michigan Journal of International Law
Jürgen Habermas’s theory of “communicative rationality” (also known as “communicative action”) provides a promising conceptual apparatus through which to justify and validate the International Criminal Court’s consideration of the emerging phenomenon of digital open-source information. Because of its process-based and inclusive qualities, Habermas’s communicative rationality is particularly apposite for the dynamic nature of digital open-source information and the heterogenous range of actors and institutions which have relevant experiences and skills to contribute to the generation of norms and determinations regarding its role before the Court. This is important, as the International Criminal Court’s procedural framework is largely silent on digital …
Child Abuse Evidence: New Perspectives From Law, Medicine, Psychology & Statistics: Opening Remarks, November 6, 2015, Bridget M. Mccormack
Child Abuse Evidence: New Perspectives From Law, Medicine, Psychology & Statistics: Opening Remarks, November 6, 2015, Bridget M. Mccormack
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Opening remarks by Justice Bridget McCormack, Michigan Supreme Court on November 6, 2015.
A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr
A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr
Michigan Law Review
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 show …
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar
Articles
There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4
Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg
Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …
Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …
Conjunction And Aggregation, Saul Levmore
Conjunction And Aggregation, Saul Levmore
Michigan Law Review
This Article begins with the puzzle of why the law avoids the issue of conjunctive probability. Mathematically inclined observers might, for example, employ the "product rule," multiplying the probabilities associated with several events or requirements in order to assess a combined likelihood, but judges and lawyers seem otherwise inclined. Courts and statutes might be explicit about the manner in which multiple requirements should be combined, but they are not. Thus, it is often unclear whether a factfinder should assess if condition A was more likely than not to be present - and then go on to see whether condition B …
An Outsider's View Of Common Law Evidence, Roger C. Park
An Outsider's View Of Common Law Evidence, Roger C. Park
Michigan Law Review
same line by a Newton. There have been improvements since Bentham's jeremiad. But Anglo-American evidence law is still puzzling. It rejects the common-sense principle of free proof in favor of a grotesque jumble of technicalities. It has the breathtaking aspiration of regulating inference by rule, causing it to exalt the foresight of remote rulemakers over the wisdom of on-the-spot adjudicators. It departs from tried-and-true practices of rational inquiry, as when it prohibits courts from using categories of evidence that are freely used both in everyday life and in the highest affairs of state. Sometimes it seems to fear dim light …
Controlling The Police: The Judge's Role In Making And Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, Wayne R. Lafave, Frank J. Remington
Controlling The Police: The Judge's Role In Making And Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, Wayne R. Lafave, Frank J. Remington
Michigan Law Review
We have chosen to focus here upon judicial involvement (1) in determining whether arrest and search warrants should issue and (2) in reviewing such decisions after they have been executed (and, perhaps, made) by police officials. A comparison of some recent findings respecting the actual practice at the trial level with the "ideal" as set forth in appellate opinions may allow some conclusions to be drawn both as to the present effectiveness of appellate rulings on these subjects and as to the ultimate feasibility of further implementation of those rulings. Finally, since the exclusionary rule is, theoretically at least, one …
Eminent Domain - Procedure - Relation Of Judge And Jury In Michigan Condemnation Proceedings, John H. Jackson S.Ed.
Eminent Domain - Procedure - Relation Of Judge And Jury In Michigan Condemnation Proceedings, John H. Jackson S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The relationship of judge to jury in Michigan condemnation proceedings presents in many ways a merger of some of the problems and questions contained in the relationship of judge to jury in civil trials, and of court to tribunal in administrative law. Theorists as well as the practicing lawyer in Michigan and some other states" may well find in the development of the Michigan condemnation proceeding an interesting example of the growth of a procedure for adjudication, in a context of cross-fire between legislative ideas and judicial interpretation of a constitutional provision.
Criminal Law - Trial - Duty Of Judge To Instruct On Lesser And Included Crimes, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Criminal Law - Trial - Duty Of Judge To Instruct On Lesser And Included Crimes, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Appellant was one of four defendants who were charged in three separate counts of an indictment with the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree with intent to commit robbery and grand larceny. After all the evidence had been entered, the trial judge submitted only the count of attempted robbery to the jury, instructing them that they return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of that crime. The defense excepted to the court's refusal to submit the other counts charged in the indictment. The defendant …
Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite
Judge And The Crime Burden, John Barker Waite
Michigan Law Review
One does not happily charge the judiciary with responsibility for the country's burden of crime, but the responsibility does in fact exist. Judges, though they may not encourage crime, interfere with its prevention in various ways. They deliberately restrict police efficiency in the discovery of criminals. They exempt from punishment many criminals who are discovered and whose guilt is evident. More seriously still, they so warp and alter the public's attitude toward crime and criminals as gravely to weaken the country's most effective crime preventive.
In Suport Of The Thayer Theory Of Presumptions, Charles V. Laughlin
In Suport Of The Thayer Theory Of Presumptions, Charles V. Laughlin
Michigan Law Review
A learned judge once said to a young lawyer, "If you are ever a trial court judge, never give reasons for your decisions. Your rulings will probably be right, but your reasons will likely be wrong." That statement may aptly apply to judicial pronouncements relating to the subject of presumptions. Decisions are largely free from criticism so far as concerns the results reached, but the reasoning processes by which they are reached appear to be in hopeless confusion. It is believed that a theory can be presented which will both reconcile these confusions of judicial techniques and explain the general …
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
No abstract provided.