Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (70)
- Criminal Procedure (56)
- Constitutional Law (41)
- Courts (28)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (24)
-
- Litigation (21)
- Law and Psychology (17)
- Science and Technology Law (14)
- Psychology (13)
- Child Psychology (11)
- Civil Procedure (11)
- Jurisprudence (11)
- Developmental Psychology (9)
- Fourth Amendment (8)
- Family Law (7)
- Judges (7)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (7)
- Law and Society (7)
- Legal History (7)
- Civil Law (6)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (6)
- Internet Law (6)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (5)
- Supreme Court of the United States (5)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (4)
- Computer Law (4)
- Juvenile Law (4)
- Legal Education (4)
- Institution
-
- Selected Works (58)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (22)
- SelectedWorks (12)
- William & Mary Law School (12)
- University of Massachusetts School of Law (9)
-
- University of Michigan Law School (8)
- Fordham Law School (6)
- American University Washington College of Law (5)
- University of Georgia School of Law (5)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (5)
- University of Tennessee, Knoxville (5)
- University of the Pacific (5)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (4)
- Florida State University College of Law (3)
- Roger Williams University (3)
- University of Montana (3)
- University of Richmond (3)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- Boston University School of Law (2)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (2)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- Georgetown University Law Center (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- Mercer University School of Law (2)
- Notre Dame Law School (2)
- Singapore Management University (2)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (71)
- Admissibility (17)
- Hearsay (11)
- Testimony (11)
- Child abuse (10)
-
- Witnesses (10)
- Touro (9)
- A. Publications in Peer-reviewed Journals (8)
- Capital Punishment (8)
- Child neglect (8)
- Confrontation Clause (8)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (8)
- Cross-examination (8)
- New York (8)
- Sixth Amendment (8)
- Virginia (8)
- Atkins v. Virginia (536 U.S. 304 (2002)) (7)
- Child testimony (7)
- Child witnesses (7)
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment (7)
- Mentally Disabled Persons (7)
- United States Constitution 8th Amendment (7)
- Child maltreatment (6)
- Child psychology (6)
- Courts (6)
- Crawford (6)
- Criminal law (6)
- Discovery (6)
- Due process (6)
- Judges (6)
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (22)
- Thomas D. Lyon (11)
- University of Massachusetts Law Review (9)
- Faculty Scholarship (8)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (7)
-
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Fordham Law Review (6)
- Scholarly Works (6)
- Faculty Publications (5)
- Kevin M. Clermont (5)
- Michael L Seigel (5)
- Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy (5)
- Criminal Law Practitioner (4)
- Robert M. Sanger (4)
- Sheri Lynn Johnson (4)
- Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings (3)
- John H. Blume (3)
- McGeorge Law Review (3)
- Michigan Law Review (3)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (3)
- Scholarly Publications (3)
- Sherry Colb (3)
- Siyuan CHEN (3)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (3)
- Articles (2)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (2)
- James L. Kainen (2)
- Jeffrey J. Rachlinski (2)
- Jonathan H. Lomurro Esq. LLM (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 226
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Michael L. Orenstein
The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Michael L. Orenstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well-founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement conference, …
Altering Attention In Adjudication, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie
Altering Attention In Adjudication, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Judges decide complex cases in rapid succession but are limited by cognitive constraints. Consequently judges cannot allocate equal attention to every aspect of a case. Case outcomes might thus depend on which aspects of a case are particularly salient to the judge. Put simply, a judge focusing on one aspect of a case might reach a different outcome than a judge focusing on another. In this Article, we report the results of a series of studies exploring various ways in which directing judicial attention can shape judicial outcomes. In the first study, we show that judges impose shorter sentences when …
Racial Imagery In Criminal Cases, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Racial Imagery In Criminal Cases, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Sheri Lynn Johnson
On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …
Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson
Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Convicting Lennie: Mental Retardation, Wrongful Convictions, And The Right To A Fair Trial, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Susan E. Millor
Convicting Lennie: Mental Retardation, Wrongful Convictions, And The Right To A Fair Trial, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Susan E. Millor
Sheri Lynn Johnson
"Lennie" refers to Lennie Small, the intellectually disabled character in John Steinbeck's famous novella Of Mice and Men, which tells the story of two Depression-era wandering farmhands, George and Lennie, who dream of getting their own stake and living "off the fat of the land." Their dream dies hard when Lennie accidently kills the young, beautiful, and flirtatious wife of a ranch owner's son and then tries to cover it up because he realizes that he has "done a bad thing." George, in turn, kills Lennie to prevent him from being lynched or tried for murder. Lennie was doomed because …
"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb
"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb
Sherry Colb
In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Some Thoughts On The Conduct/Status Distinction, Sherry F. Colb
Sherry Colb
No abstract provided.
Assuming Facts Not In Evidence: A Response To Russell M. Coombs, Reforming New Jersey Evidence Law On Fresh Complaint Of Rape, Sherry F. Colb
Assuming Facts Not In Evidence: A Response To Russell M. Coombs, Reforming New Jersey Evidence Law On Fresh Complaint Of Rape, Sherry F. Colb
Sherry Colb
No abstract provided.
Standards Of Proof Revisited, Kevin M. Clermont
Standards Of Proof Revisited, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
This Essay focuses not on how fact-finders process evidence but on how they apply the specified standard of proof to their finding. The oddity that prompts speculation is that, in noncriminal cases, the common law asks only that the fact appear more likely than not, while the Civil Law seems to apply the same high standard in these cases as it does in criminal cases. As a psychological explanation of the cognitive processes involved, some theorists posit that the bulk of fact-finding is an unconscious process, powerful but dangerous, which generates a level of confidence against which the fact-finder could …
Surveying Work Product, Kevin M. Clermont
Surveying Work Product, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
Work product is the legal doctrine that central casting would send over. First, it boasts profundities, arising as it does from the colliding thrusts of our discovery and trial processes and from conflicting currents in our modified adversary system. Second, it will surface frequently, because the protected materials are commonly created by each side but uncommonly useful to the opponent. Third, it has generated a small mountain of lower-court case law, with the foothills forming a labyrinth of rules and wrinkles. In short, work product has for a couple of generations dramatically bewitched academics, bothered practitioners, and bewildered students. Significant …
Standards Of Proof In Japan And The United States, Kevin M. Clermont
Standards Of Proof In Japan And The United States, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
This article treats the striking divergence between Japanese and U.S. civil cases as to standards of proof. The civil-law Japan requires proof to a high probability similar to the criminal standard, while the common-law United States requires only that the burdened party prove the fact to be more likely than not. This divergence not only entails great practical consequences, but also suggests a basic difference in attitudes toward the process of trial. As to the historical causation of the difference in standards of proof, civil-law and common-law standards diverged in the late eighteenth century, probably because of one system’s French …
Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin Clermont
Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof. I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …
Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work. Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …
Life, Death, And Neuroimaging: The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Defense's Use Of Neuroimages In Capital Cases - Lessons From The Front, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola
Life, Death, And Neuroimaging: The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Defense's Use Of Neuroimages In Capital Cases - Lessons From The Front, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola
John H. Blume
The use of neuroimaging in capital cases has become increasingly common. An informal survey of cases produced over one hundred opinions from reported decisions alone discussing the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans, and similar technology in capital cases. This article gives practical advice to defense counsel considering the use of neuroimaging in a capital case. We discuss how, in the right case, this technology can be a valuable investigative tool used to produce an important component of a successful mitigation story. However, …
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola
John H. Blume
On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …
Convicting Lennie: Mental Retardation, Wrongful Convictions, And The Right To A Fair Trial, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Susan E. Millor
Convicting Lennie: Mental Retardation, Wrongful Convictions, And The Right To A Fair Trial, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Susan E. Millor
John H. Blume
"Lennie" refers to Lennie Small, the intellectually disabled character in John Steinbeck's famous novella Of Mice and Men, which tells the story of two Depression-era wandering farmhands, George and Lennie, who dream of getting their own stake and living "off the fat of the land." Their dream dies hard when Lennie accidently kills the young, beautiful, and flirtatious wife of a ranch owner's son and then tries to cover it up because he realizes that he has "done a bad thing." George, in turn, kills Lennie to prevent him from being lynched or tried for murder. Lennie was doomed because …
Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii
Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii
John J. Barceló III
The essay maintains that the WTO Appellate Body's concepts and terminology concerning a claimant's burden of proof-the concepts of prima facie case, presumption, and burden shifting-are disturbingly ambiguous and potentially misleading. This is so whether one thinks of these terms from either a common law or a civil law perspective. In the face of the current ambiguity, a future panel might understand the AB's prima facie case concept to require an overwhelming level of proof from the claimant. On the other hand, a different panel might allow a rather weak level of claimant's proof to meet the prima facie requirement, …
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.
The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive
The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Newsroom: Horwitz On The Role Of Grand Juries, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Newsroom: Horwitz On The Role Of Grand Juries, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein
Supreme Court's Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Say Sorry And Save: A Practical Argument For A Greater Role For Apologies In Medical Malpractice Law, Matthew Pillsbury
Say Sorry And Save: A Practical Argument For A Greater Role For Apologies In Medical Malpractice Law, Matthew Pillsbury
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This article examines both the potential benefits and detriments of the use of an apology in a legal setting. This article uses the specific environment surrounding a medical malpractice case to help illustrate how and why an apology should or should not be proffered by the Defendant. Ultimately, the reader of this article should have a solid understanding of how an apology can be admissible as evidence in the litigation of a medical malpractice lawsuit.
Strengths, Limitations, And Controversies Of Dna Evidence, Naseam Rachel Behrouzfard
Strengths, Limitations, And Controversies Of Dna Evidence, Naseam Rachel Behrouzfard
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This article explores the benefits of DNA evidence as well as the evidentiary problems associated with DNA. Part II discusses the history, development, and the emergence of DNA in the criminal justice system. Part III analyzes the significance of DNA evidence and its impact on recent cases. Part IV describes the disadvantages of DNA evidence in terms of efficiency, risks, human error, and its impact on jurors.