Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Arizona jury reform (1)
- Attorney client privilege (1)
- Bowers v. Hardwick (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Character evidence (1)
-
- Civil trials (1)
- Conduct (1)
- Empirical legal studies (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Formal legal truth (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Homosexuality (1)
- Hung juries (1)
- Journalist privilege (1)
- Judicial notice (1)
- Jury Trial Innovations (1)
- Jury deadlock (1)
- Jury decision making (1)
- Jury deliberations (1)
- Jury reforms (1)
- Jury trial discussions (1)
- Mistrials (1)
- New York law (1)
- Parent child privilege (1)
- Robinson v. California (1)
- Romer v. Evans (1)
- Status (1)
- Substantive truth (1)
- The American Jury (1)
- United States v. Wexler (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
How Much Justice Hangs In The Balance? A New Look At Hung Jury Rates, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
How Much Justice Hangs In The Balance? A New Look At Hung Jury Rates, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Reports of apparent increases in the number of hung juries in some jurisdictions have caused concern among policy makers. A 1995 report by the California District Attorneys Association cited hung jury rates in 1994 that exceeded 15 percent in some jurisdictions (the rates varied from 3 to 23 percent across the nine counties for which data were available). In 1996, the District of Columbia Superior Court reported a higher-than-expected hung jury rate of 11 percent. Why juries hang at these rates isn't clear, but some commentators have claimed that hung juries are the product of eccentric or nullifying holdout jurors …
Formal Legal Truth And Substantive Truth In Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence In Some Particular Cases, Robert S. Summers
Formal Legal Truth And Substantive Truth In Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence In Some Particular Cases, Robert S. Summers
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, ‘substantive’ as distinct from ‘formal legal’ truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. ‘Jury nullification’ and ‘jury equity’. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.