Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Interview Notes Of Government Agents Under The Jencks Act, Michigan Law Review
Interview Notes Of Government Agents Under The Jencks Act, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Most courts that have considered the issue have concluded that the Jencks Act does not require the government to retain and produce rough interview notes. This Note examines the language and purpose of the Act to determine whether interview notes should be considered Jencks Act statements. Part I examines the policy underlying the Jencks Act and argues that the majority position sanctioning pre-trial destruction of interview notes conflicts with these statutory purposes. Part II discusses the statutory language and argues that the status of the witness as a government agent or a private individual determines the applicable section of the …
The Numbers Game: Statistical Inference In Discrimination Cases, David H. Kaye
The Numbers Game: Statistical Inference In Discrimination Cases, David H. Kaye
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Statistical Proof of Discrimination by David Baldus and James Cole
The Use/Nonuse/Misuse Of Applied Social Research In The Courts, Michigan Law Review
The Use/Nonuse/Misuse Of Applied Social Research In The Courts, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts edited by Michael J. Saks and Charles H. Baron
Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review
Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note proposes an approach to the problem of identification of rule 26(b)(4)(B) experts that differs from both of the approaches taken in the reported opinions. 9 Part I analyzes the language of rule 26(b) and rejects the majority approach. As a matter of statutory construction, rule 26(b )( 4)(B) governs the disclosure of the identity of nontestifying experts retained by a party in preparation for trial. Part II examines the underlying purposes of rules 26(b)(l) and 26(b)(4)(B) - to ensure adequate pretrial disclosure and to prevent unfairness in adversarial competition - and suggests that both interests may be accommodated. …