Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (13)
- Litigation (12)
- Science and Technology Law (9)
- Criminal Procedure (8)
- Criminal Law (7)
-
- Medical Jurisprudence (7)
- Civil Procedure (6)
- Law and Psychology (5)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (3)
- Intellectual Property Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Juvenile Law (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Medicine and Health Sciences (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Business (1)
- Business Intelligence (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Business and Corporate Communications (1)
- Corporate Finance (1)
- Criminology and Criminal Justice (1)
- Diseases (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Finance and Financial Management (1)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (27)
- University of Miami Law School (17)
- West Virginia University (9)
- Duke Law (5)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (4)
-
- Selected Works (4)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- Cornell University Law School (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Golden Gate University School of Law (1)
- Louisiana State University Law Center (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Penn State Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- SelectedWorks (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (23)
- University of Miami Law Review (13)
- West Virginia Law Review (8)
- Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Michigan Law Review (6)
-
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (2)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- David Kaye (1)
- David S Caudill (1)
- FIU Law Review (1)
- Golden Gate University Law Review (1)
- James D. Ridgway (1)
- Jane Campbell Moriarty (1)
- Journal Articles (1)
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Louisiana Law Review (1)
- Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law (1)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (1)
- Pace Law Review (1)
- Robert M. Sanger (1)
- Scholarly Articles (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (1)
- West Virginia Law Review Online (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 83
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Of Truth, In Science And In Law, Susan Haack
Science, Intersubjective Validity, And Judicial Legitimacy, Richard B. Katskee
Science, Intersubjective Validity, And Judicial Legitimacy, Richard B. Katskee
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Can A Jury Believe My Eyes, And Should Courts Let Experts Tell Them Why Not? The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On Cross-Racial Eyewitness Identification In New York After People V. Young, Jody E. Frampton
Pace Law Review
No abstract provided.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.
Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng
Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng
Michigan Law Review
For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics. To this literature, Professor Tal Golan adds Laws of Men …
Gatekeeping, Peter B. Oh
Gatekeeping, Peter B. Oh
Articles
Gatekeeping is a metaphor ubiquitous across disciplines and within fields of law. Generally, gatekeeping comprises an actor monitoring the quality of information, products, or services. Specific conceptions of gatekeeping functions have arisen independently within corporate and evidentiary law. Corporate gatekeeping entails deciding whether to grant or withhold support necessary for financial disclosure; evidentiary gatekeeping entails assessing whether expert knowledge is relevant and reliable for admissibility. This article is the first to identify substantive parallels between gatekeeping in these two contexts and to suggest their cross-treatment. Public corporate gatekeepers, like their judicial evidentiary analogues, should bear a duty of reliable monitoring.
Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill
Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill
Scholarly Articles
In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodology, this Article identifies in recent cases (i) a pragmatic perspective on the part of federal appellate judges when they reverse trial judges who tend to idealize science (i.e., who do not appreciate the local and practical goals and limitations of science), and (ii) an educational model of judicial gatekeeping that results in reversal of trial judges who defer to the social authority of science (i.e., who mistake authority for reliability). Next, this Article observes that courts (in the cases it analyzes) are not interested …
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Articles
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …
A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg
A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg
Seattle University Law Review
Part I of this Article delineates a defendant's right to present voluntariness and credibility evidence against his or her confession. This section analyzes the basic constitutional framework of how a defendant can present this evidence and describes the traditional safeguards against false confessions. This background information provides a context for the overarching issue of expert testimony admissibility. Part II provides a basic understanding of differences between the psychiatric (medical model) and psychological (social model) approach to false confessions. It then examines the types of false confession defenses used by defendants and the interrogation techniques challenged by defendants. Part III reviews …
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Minimizing The Jury Over-Valuation Concern (Visions Of Rationality In Evidence Law Symposium), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
A great deal of the rhetoric of evidence discourse concerns the supposed cognitive inadequacies of the jury. In various contexts we are told that although an item of evidence is probative, it must be excluded because the jury will give it too much weight. I believe this approach has played far too great a role in evidentiary law, and that it is an interesting project to see whether we can construct a satisfactory body of law without relying at all on the cognitive inadequacy argument. I think that, at least to a large extent, we can. In some settings, where …
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Squeezing Daubert Out Of The Picture, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this essay, I will offer some thoughts on how we might reframe the issues governing the admissibility of expert evidence. My principal focus is not on any particular type of expert evidence but on broader questions: the extent to which we ought to rely on rulings of admissibility, the standards that should govern admissibility rulings, and the role of the trial and appellate courts in making those rulings. To some extent, I will concentrate on the context of criminal cases, but for the most part my conclusions apply in both civil and criminal litigation. Here are my conclusions: First, …
Admitting Expert Testimony In Federal Courts And Its Impact On West Virginia Jurisprudence, Robin Jean Davis
Admitting Expert Testimony In Federal Courts And Its Impact On West Virginia Jurisprudence, Robin Jean Davis
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Testimony On Fingerprints: An Internet Exchange, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Jennifer Mnookin, Dale Nance, Michael Saks
Expert Testimony On Fingerprints: An Internet Exchange, Richard D. Friedman, David H. Kaye, Jennifer Mnookin, Dale Nance, Michael Saks
Articles
In United States v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Pa. 2002), a federal district initially limited expert opinion testimony on fingerprint identifications because the government was unable to show that such identifications were sufficiently valid and reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Then, the court withdrew the opinion. This article reproduces an exchange of notes on the initial opinion submitted by five law professors.
How Much Is Too Much? Rule 704(B) Opinions On Personal Use Vs. Intent To Distribute, Dana R. Hassin
How Much Is Too Much? Rule 704(B) Opinions On Personal Use Vs. Intent To Distribute, Dana R. Hassin
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Recipe For Confusion: Congress And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Professor Daniel J. Capra
A Recipe For Confusion: Congress And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Professor Daniel J. Capra
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Testimony On Eyewitness Identification: Admissibility And Alternatives, Thomas Dillickrath
Expert Testimony On Eyewitness Identification: Admissibility And Alternatives, Thomas Dillickrath
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Response To Professor Graham, Brett C. Powell
A Response To Professor Graham, Brett C. Powell
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence Of Innocence Offered By The Criminal Defendant: "Not So Fast"; Response, Professor Kenneth W. Graham Jr.
Evidence Of Innocence Offered By The Criminal Defendant: "Not So Fast"; Response, Professor Kenneth W. Graham Jr.
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Response To Professor Graham, Thomas Dillickrath
A Response To Professor Graham, Thomas Dillickrath
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Response, Yvette J. Bessent
Response, Dana R. Hassin
Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye
Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye
Journal Articles
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey, questions that court’s rationales for refusing to apply heightened scrutiny to psychiatric testimony about the retrieval of repressed memories. It also challenges the court’s use of a “personal observations” exception to the heightened scrutiny standard of Frye v. United States. It proposes that a better solution to problems of scientific and expert evidence would be to adopt a sliding scale that attends to the use to which the evidence is put and the degree to which it has been shown to be …
A Suggestion On Suggestion, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
A Suggestion On Suggestion, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci
Articles
Part I of the full article briefly describes the history and current slate of research into children's suggestibility. In this part, we argue that, although psychological researchers disagree considerably over the degree to which he suggestibility of young children may lead to false allegations of sexual abuse, there is an overwhelming consensus that children are suggestible to a degree that, we believe, must be regarded as significant. In presenting this argument, we respond to the contentions of revisionist scholars, particularly those recently expressed by Professor Lyon. We show that there is good reason to believe the use of highly suggestive …
The Expert Witness Predicament: Determining "Reliable" Under The Gatekeeping Test Of Daubert, Kumho, And Proposed Amended Rule 702 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael H. Graham
The Expert Witness Predicament: Determining "Reliable" Under The Gatekeeping Test Of Daubert, Kumho, And Proposed Amended Rule 702 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael H. Graham
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
The Suggestibility Of Children: Scientific Research And Legal Implications, Stephen J. Ceci, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Article, Professors Ceci and Friedman analyze psychological studies on children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a significant degree. Studies confirm that interviewers commonly use suggestive interviewing techniques that exacerbate this suggestibility, creating a significant risk in some forensic contexts-notably but not exclusively those of suspected child abuse-that children will make false assertions of fact. Professors Ceci and Friedman address the implications of this difficulty for the legal system and respond to Professor Lyon's criticism of this view recently articulated in the Cornell Law Review. Using Bayesian probability theory, Professors Ceci and …
Expert Witnesses Under Rules 703 And 803(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff, L. Timothy Perrin
Expert Witnesses Under Rules 703 And 803(4) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff, L. Timothy Perrin
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Mental Health Experts On Trial: Free Will And Determinism In The Courtroom, Ronald J. Rychlak, Joseph F. Rychlak
Mental Health Experts On Trial: Free Will And Determinism In The Courtroom, Ronald J. Rychlak, Joseph F. Rychlak
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Proper Test For Assessing The Admissibility Of Nonscientific Expert Evidence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 702, 1997 John M. Manos Writing Competition On Evidence , Peter B. Oh
Cleveland State Law Review
Courts have fashioned various common law standards to determine the admissibility of nonscientific expert evidence. This Article examines these different standards to evince the need for harmony. Part I of this article examines the admissibility tests for nonscientific expert evidence administered by federal courts before Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The first such test appears in Frye v. United States, which establishes only expert knowledge based on a method or principle that has gained sufficient "general acceptance" can be admitted. Part I concludes by discussing the problems that plague these different applied tests and beckon for a single standard. Part …
"Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence In The Courtroom After Daubert, Krista L. Duncan
"Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics"? Psychological Syndrome Evidence In The Courtroom After Daubert, Krista L. Duncan
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Is The Doctor Hostile--Obstructive Impairments And The Hostility Rule In Federal Black Lung Claims, Timothy F. Cogan
Is The Doctor Hostile--Obstructive Impairments And The Hostility Rule In Federal Black Lung Claims, Timothy F. Cogan
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.