Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- "Amanda Walsh" (1)
- "Andrea Hansen" (1)
- "Andrew T. Miltenberg" (1)
- "Angela Carr" (1)
- "Caitlyn Horbert" (1)
-
- "Claire K. Hall" (1)
- "David Logan" (1)
- "Education Amendments Act of 1972" (1)
- "Jen Stanley" (1)
- "Jennifer Gentile Long" (1)
- "Lynette Labinger" (1)
- "Nancy Chi Cantalupo" (1)
- "Steven M. Richard" (1)
- "Susan Kruth" (1)
- "Tiffany Gaffney" (1)
- Accused (1)
- Allegations (1)
- Attorney (1)
- Boston (1)
- Brown (1)
- Burden (1)
- Calibrating (1)
- Career (1)
- Colleague (1)
- College (1)
- Color (1)
- Complaining (1)
- Compliance-oriented (1)
- Coordinator (1)
- Criminal (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Law Symposium: Adjudicating Sexual Misconduct On Campus: Title Ix And Due Process In Uncertain Times, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden
Law Symposium: Adjudicating Sexual Misconduct On Campus: Title Ix And Due Process In Uncertain Times, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.
How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos
How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos
Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits plaintiffs from introducing evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show that the defendant is to blame. Among its purported justifications, the rule prevents hindsight bias from unduly influencing jury decisions. Nonetheless, plaintiffs often take advantage of the rule’s numerous exceptions to introduce evidence of remedial measures for other purposes (e.g. to prove feasibility). Fearing that the exceptions could swallow the rule, some courts will even exclude evidence that fits into one of these exceptions because it is ostensibly too prejudicial. Alternatively, other courts instruct juries that they should only use the evidence for the …