Evidence Commons^™

Rule 1001: The "Original Document" Rule

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Four Greatest Myths About Summary Judgment, James Joseph Duane

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Daubert And The Quest For Value-Free "Scientific Knowledge" In The Courtroom, Alexander Morgan Capron

University of Richmond Law Review

In a world that grows more technologically complex every day and in which scientific research continually expands both our understanding of, and our questions about, the operation of the natural and man-made world, it is hardly surprising that science should show up with increasing frequency in our court-rooms. Science itself is sometimes at issue, for example, in proceedings on allegations of scientific misconduct or in disputes over the ownership or patentability of technologies. But more frequently, science enters in aid of resolving a case in which a complex question of causation is at issue. To establish or rebut causation, each …

Admissibility Of Dna Evidence

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Other Accident" Evidence In Product Liability Actions: Highly Probative Or An Accident Waiting To Happen?, Robert A. Sachs

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Text, Texts, Or Ad Hoc Determinations: Interpretation Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, And The Law Of Evidence , Eileen A. Scallen

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.

A Theory Of Verbal Completeness, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

In this Article I will endorse the view that the most important modem function of the completeness rule is to trump otherwise applicable exclusionary rules, though not every rule in every instance. I will also offer the general proposition that it should almost always trump one large and important class of exclusionary rules, those based upon the "best evidence" principle, that is, the principle that parties should present to the tribunal the epistemically best evidence available to them on a given litigated issue.

Proposed Evidence Rules 413 To 415 – Some Problems And Recommendations, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Section 320935 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 proposes three new Federal Rules of Evidence-Rules 413-415 – that would liberalize the admissibility of "propensity evidence" in criminal and civil cases involving allegations of sexual assault and child molestation. This Article expresses some reservations about, and suggests some alternatives to, Proposed Rules 413-415.

Prior Statements Of A Witness: A Nettlesome Corner Of The Hearsay Thicket, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Tome v United States, for the fifth time in eight years, the Supreme Court decided a case presenting the problem of how a child's allegations of sexual abuse should be presented in court. Often the child who charges that an adult abused her is unable to testify at trial, or at least unable to testify effectively under standard procedures. These cases therefore raise intriguing and difficult questions related to the rule against hearsay and to an accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him. One would hardly guess that, however, from the rather arid debate …

Intellectual Coherence In An Evidence Code, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules or Rules) were created in large part to promote uniformity and predictability in federal trials by providing a relatively instructive guide for judges and lawyers concerning the admissibility of evidence. As with any codification, success in this respect requires, among other things, that there be a considerable degree of intellectual coherence among the code's various provisions. The Federal Rules fall short of intellectual coherence in a number of areas. They contain contradictory and inconsistent mandates that do not make theoretical sense and therefore accord the trial judge almost unlimited discretion in these areas. …

Experts, Liars, And Guns For Hire: A Different Perspective On The Qualification Of Technical Expert Witnesses, Christopher P. Murphy

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hearsay, The New York And Federal Rules Of Evidence: What's The Difference?, Richard T. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The rule of Frye v. United States was seventy years old, and had long dominated American law on the question of how well established a scientific principle must be for it to provide the basis for expert testimony. Even after the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence, several of the federal circuits, as well as various states, purported to adhere to Frye's "general acceptance" standard. But now, unanimously, briefly, and with no apparent angst, the United States Supreme Court has held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the Frye rule is incompatible with the Federal Rules.

Taking The Sizzle Out Of The Frye Rule: Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Opens The Door To Novel Expert Testimony, Kimberly Ann Satterwhite

University of Richmond Law Review

In Frye v. United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed a trial court's exclusion of lie detector test results on the ground that such tests had not been "generally accepted" by the scientific community. The Frye rule, or "general acceptance" standard, quickly became the dominant test for the admission of scientific evidence. Decided in 1923, Frye governed evidentiary decisions in a majority of federal circuits for the next seventy years. The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, however, prompted several judges to question the validity of Frye. Since the enactment of the …

The Dangers Of "General Observations" On Expert Scientific Testimony: A Comment On Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert F. Blomquist

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Brief Look At New York's Efforts To Codify Its Law Of Evidence, Barbara C. Salken

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence: Indiana Moves Toward Adoption Of The Federal Rules, Ivan E. Bodensteiner

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Much Ado About Nothing - The Supreme Court Still Fails To Solve The General Acceptance Problem Regarding Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence , Joseph B. Spero

Journal of Law and Health

This paper will discuss and analyze the problem of scientific evidence and expert testimony from Frye v. United States to the new grounds for admissibility established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This note will specifically focus on some of the changes made by the courts to the common law rule and follow its transformation to a more liberal standard within the federal court system. The paper will conclude that the courts have not really changed their position on the admissibility of scientific evidence and that their current criteria still are …

Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Chicken Little's Revenge: Strict Judicial Scrutiny Of Scientific Evidence, Scott Charles Walker

Cleveland State Law Review

This note focuses on the current controversy over admissibility standards for novel scientific testimony. It will trace the development of legal standards for expert witness admissibility from the common law through the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the current trend of strict judicial scrutiny. In addition, this note will analyze the issues before the United States Supreme Court in Daubert and will argue, in spite of indications to the contrary, that the Court should not be too quick to continue tightening the judicial noose on scientific experts. Finally, this note will dispute the utility of amending …

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Brief Of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., National Association Of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, And Chemical Manufacturers Association As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, William Daubert And Joyce Daubert, Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Jason Daubert, And Anita De Young, Individually And As Gaurdian Ad Litem For Eric Schuller V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Paul F. Rothstein, Victor E. Schwartz, Robert P. Charrow, Scott L. Winkelman, Edward C. Wu, Richard Duesenberg, David F. Zoll, Donald D. Evans, Jan S. Amundson, Edward P. Good

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

The Federal Rules of Evidence exclude expert scientific testimony when it has been developed without regard for accepted scientific methods.

This case focuses on expert scientific evidence. Such evidence plays a vital and often dispositive role in modern litigation. For scientific evidence to be helpful to the factfinder it must meet some minimal threshold of reliability. To hold otherwise would be to allow a system of adjudication based more on chance than on reason.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence After Sixteen Years -- The Effect Of "Plain Meaning" Jurisprudence, The Need For An Advisory Committee On The Rules Of Evidence, And Suggestions For Selective Revision Of The Rules, Aviva A. Orenstein, Edward R. Becker

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Character And Credibility: A Proposal To Realign Federal Rules Of Evidence 608 And 609, Robert D. Okun

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article addresses some of the more significant evidence cases decided by the Fifth Circuit during the survey period.' Before turning to the cases themselves, it is important to note at the outset that like other federal courts, the Fifth Circuit is generally not inclined to reverse a case on an evidentiary error. It should not be surprising then that in most of the cases which follow, the court implicitly deferred to the decision of the trial judge in deciding whether a certain piece of evidence was admissible.

Supreme Court, Plain Meaning, And The Changed Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.