Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Daubert (1)
-
- Daubert Analysis (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phamaceuticals Inc (1)
- Death penalty appeal (1)
- District court (1)
- Document retention (1)
- Due process (1)
- Enron (1)
- Equitable authority of the federal courts of appeals (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony. Expert witness (1)
- Extra-record evidence (1)
- Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(C) (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (1)
- Federal conspiracy (1)
- Gatekeeping errors (1)
- Guilty knowledge (1)
- Harmful error (1)
- Intent (1)
- Law and science (1)
- New trial time limits (1)
- Obstruction of justice (1)
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (1)
- Remand (1)
- Reversal (1)
- Slight evidence rule (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Is Limited Remand Required If The District Court Admitted Or Excluded Evidence Without A Daubert Analysis?, Robert B. Gilbreath
Is Limited Remand Required If The District Court Admitted Or Excluded Evidence Without A Daubert Analysis?, Robert B. Gilbreath
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
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
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.
Document Destruction After Arthur Andersen: Is It Still Housekeeping Or Is It A Crime, Steven Lubet
Document Destruction After Arthur Andersen: Is It Still Housekeeping Or Is It A Crime, Steven Lubet
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
Newly Available, Not Newly Discovered, Penny J. White
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Advances in science have made it possible to discover new evidence. This newly discovered evidence is not always admissible as evidence. This essay suggests methods by which appellate courts may approach a balance between the rigid application of limitation periods in serious criminal cases and admitting evidence that proves innocence.
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Response To Brecheen V. Reynolds: Oklahoma’S System For Evaluating Extra-Record Constitutional Claims In Death Penalty Cased, Jeremy B. Lowrey
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article attempts to define the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. The article begins by distinguishing the three types of appellate review. It then focuses on review of discretion. Articles written by Professors Maurice Rosenburg, Robert C. Post, and Judge Henery J. Friendly are next analyzed in order to further evaluate judicial discretionary decisionmaking. Caselaw is next used to discuss how courts have attempted to define and apply the abuse of discretion standard. Primary cases considered include Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Pierce v. Underwood, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., and Koon v. United States. Finally, …
The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill
The Law And The Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence Of Intent, Erica Beecher-Monas, Edgar Garcia-Rill
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primary focus is the admissibility of expert mental state testimony in criminal cases. The issue is addressed by answering two questions: 1) how does science work and 2) how does the brain work?
The Antiquated "Slight Evidence Rule" In Federal Conspiracy Cases, Brent E. Newton
The Antiquated "Slight Evidence Rule" In Federal Conspiracy Cases, Brent E. Newton
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article addresses the risk of wrongful convictions in federal conspiracy cases. The article points out how conspiracy cases rely heavily on circumstantial evidence and the slight evidence rule. The risk of over assigning liability to parties with minor involvement is also discussed.