Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Anti-suit injunctions (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
-
- Comparative Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Conflict of laws (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal Justice (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Film (1)
- Foreign judgments (1)
- Forensic Science (1)
- Forensic science (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Hearsay Exception (1)
- International Commercial Arbitration (1)
- International Commercial Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jury (1)
- Law and culture (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for states to adopt the Daubert standards to purge “junk science” from state courts. However, there is relatively little empirical support for the notion that Daubert affects the quality of expert evidence. Using a large dataset of state court …
Recent Private International Law Developments Before The Supreme Court Of Canada, Antonin I. Pribetic
Recent Private International Law Developments Before The Supreme Court Of Canada, Antonin I. Pribetic
Antonin I. Pribetic
A trilogy of interesting cases involving private international law recently wended their way to the Supreme Court of Canada: (1) King v. Drabinsky (an Ontario case addressing the applicability of the Charter in respect of the enforcement of a foreign judgment); (2) Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters (a British Columbia case involving declaratory relief in the context of parallel proceedings and forum non conveniens); and (3) Yugraneft v. Rexx Management Corporation (an Alberta case which affirmed that the two-year limitation period under s.3 of Alberta's Limitations Act, governs when a party seeks the recognition and enforcement in Alberta …
Twenty-First Century Forensic Science Challenges For Trial Judges In Criminal Cases: Where The "Polybutadiene" Meets The "Bitumen", Hon. Donald E. Shelton
Twenty-First Century Forensic Science Challenges For Trial Judges In Criminal Cases: Where The "Polybutadiene" Meets The "Bitumen", Hon. Donald E. Shelton
Hon. Donald E. Shelton
This artice discusses the challenges faced by trial judges in crimnal cases in fulfilling their Daubert "gatekeeping" role in the face of rapid advancements in forensic science. Admissibility questions for various forms of scientific evidence are reviewed, from DNA to fingerprints to social science "syndrome" evidence. The article discusses the pretrial issues presented by DNA databases, search issues and limitations problems as well as the impact of forensic science developments on juror expectations. Finally, forensic science issues regarding trial conduct are discussed, including voir dire, arguments and jury instructions,
Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi
Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Two Decades After Beech: Confusion Over The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions In Public Records, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2009), Thomas J. Mccarthy, John M. Power
Two Decades After Beech: Confusion Over The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions In Public Records, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2009), Thomas J. Mccarthy, John M. Power
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison
When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris holds that a Georgia police officer did not violate a fleeing suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he caused the suspect's car to crash. The court's decision relies almost entirely on the filmed version of the high-speed police chase taken from a "dash-cam," a video camera mounted on the dashboard of the pursuing police cruiser. The Supreme Court said that in light of the contrary stories told by the opposing parties to the lawsuit, the only story to be believed was that told by the video. In Scott v. Harris, the court fell …