Evidence Commons^™

Experts As Hearsay Conduits: Confrontation Abuses In Opinion Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The dispute over whether litigants may use experts to run unexamined hearsay into the trial record is a microcosm of a larger debate. The larger question is whether judicial review of expert testimony should be passive, or whether the expert witness process should be marked by active judicial policing. Does the plethora of expert opinions presently being offered in modern trials merit special scrutiny by the courts?

Some scholars urge that courts must accommodate experts. Proponents of this view favor few challenges to the unrestricted rendition of opinions by an expert, whether the expert is real or self-proclaimed. Under this …

Constitutional Admissibility Of Hearsay Under The Confrontation Clause: Reliability Requirement For Hearsay Admitted Under A Non-"Firmly Rooted" Exception - Idaho V. Wright, A. Perry Wadsworth Jr.

Campbell Law Review

This note discusses the facts of Idaho v. Wright, examines the history of the admissibility of hearsay under the Confrontation Clause, and analyzes the Wright decision. This note concludes that by excluding the use of corroborative evidence in determining the trustworthiness of non-firmly rooted hearsay, the Court enhances Confrontation Clause protection for criminal defendants, but perhaps at the expense of some crime victims, such as sexually abused children.

Toward A Partial Economic, Game-Theoretic Analysis Of Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Article, I offer a fundamentally different and nondoctrinaire way of approaching hearsay questions. In brief, I take the view that the resolution of a hearsay dispute, when the declarant is not on the stand, is essentially a matter of deciding who should bear the burden of producing the declarant, or more precisely, how courts should allocate that burden. Adopting a simple procedural improvement, concerning the examination of the declarant if she is produced as a witness, allows the court to allocate the burden optimally. If live testimony by the declarant would be more probative than prejudicial, then most …

Understanding Responses To Hearsay: An Extension Of The Comparative Analysis, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Damaska's presentation at the Hearsay Reform Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1992.

Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

The enterprise of this article is the theoretical construction of an optimal solution to the hearsay conundrum. Its first task is the elucidation of the premises upon which a rational hearsay rule can be built. Thus, the article starts by exploring the relationship between hearsay doctrine and the foundation of all rational truth-seeking enterprises, inductive logic. The article continues with an examination of the relationship between hearsay evidence and trial dynamics, for a workable rule must take into account the actual functioning of our adversary system.'" This two-pronged analysis leads to the proposal of a "best evidence hearsay rule."

Infinite Strands, Infinitesimally Thin: Storytelling, Bayesianism, Hearsay And Other Evidence, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

David Schum has long been one of our keenest commentators on questions of inference and proof. He has been particularly interested in, and illuminating on, the subject of "cascaded," or multi-step, inference.' This is a subject of importance to lawyers, because most evidence at trial can be analyzed in terms of cascaded inference. Usually, the proposition that the fact finder2 might immediately infer from the evidence is not itself an element of a crime, claim, or defense. Most often, an extra inference would be required to jump from that proposition to a proposition that the law deems material. Thus, inference …