Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (4)
- Practice and Procedure (2)
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Arizona jury reform (1)
- Articles (1)
-
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Civil trials (1)
- Cognitive bias (1)
- Confidential communication privilege (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Courts (1)
- Crawford (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Critical thinking (1)
- Dewey (1)
- Dialogue (1)
- Domestic violence prevention (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Emotional (1)
- Epistemology (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- Expert Conclusions (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Feature-Comparison Methods (1)
- Feminine (1)
- Feminist (1)
- Forensic Evidence (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Judges
A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold
A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold
Michael Evan Gold
The purpose of this article is to establish a principled basis for restraint of judicial lawmaking. The principle is that all findings of fact, whether of legislative or adjudicative facts, must be based on evidence in the record of a case. This principle is grounded in moral philosophy. I will begin with a discussion of the relevant aspect of moral philosophy, then state and defend the principle, and finally apply it to a line of cases.
Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty
Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition And Judicial Gatekeeping Of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence, Jane Campbell Moriarty
Jane Campbell Moriarty
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
Valerie P. Hans
In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …
Judges, Juries, And Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans
Judges, Juries, And Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans
Valerie P. Hans
The rise in scientific evidence offered in American jury trials, along with court rulings thrusting judges into the business of assessing the soundness of scientific evidence, have produced challenges for judge and jury alike. Many judges have taken up the duty of becoming “amateur scientists.” But what about juries? Surely they too could benefit from assistance as they attempt to master and apply complex testimony about scientific matters during the course of a trial. Concerns about the jury’s ability to understand, critically evaluate, and employ scientific evidence in deciding complex trials have led to many suggestions for reform. This article …
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 …
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
James L. Kainen
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 …
Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page
Cathren Page
Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …
Reconsidering Spousal Privileges After Crawford, R. Michael Cassidy
Reconsidering Spousal Privileges After Crawford, R. Michael Cassidy
R. Michael Cassidy
In this article the author explores how domestic violence prevention efforts have been adversely impacted by the Supreme Court’s new “testimonial” approach to the confrontation clause. Examining the Court’s trilogy of cases from Crawford to Davis and Hammon, the author argues that the introduction of certain forms of hearsay in criminal cases has been drastically limited by the court’s new originalist approach to the Sixth Amendment. The author explains how state spousal privilege statutes often present a significant barrier to obtaining live testimony from victims of domestic violence. The author then argues that state legislatures should reconsider their spousal privilege …
Thinking Like Thinkers: Is The Art And Discipline Of An "Attitude Of Suspended Conclusion" Lost On Lawyers?, Donald J. Kochan
Thinking Like Thinkers: Is The Art And Discipline Of An "Attitude Of Suspended Conclusion" Lost On Lawyers?, Donald J. Kochan
Donald J. Kochan
In his 1910 book, How We Think, John Dewey proclaimed that “the most important factor in the training of good mental habits consists in acquainting the attitude of suspended conclusion. . .” This Article explores that insight and describes its meaning and significance in the enterprise of thinking generally and its importance in law school education specifically. It posits that the law would be best served if lawyers think like thinkers and adopt an attitude of suspended conclusion in their problem solving affairs. Only when conclusion is suspended is there space for the exploration of the subject at hand. The …
Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, And Judicial Gatekeeping, Jane Campbell Moriarty
Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, And Judicial Gatekeeping, Jane Campbell Moriarty
Jane Campbell Moriarty
In the last decade, a number of scientists have published articles and testified in court, explaining the ways in which they believe that some of the forensic sciences do not meet reliability standards and that laboratories make errors. The explosion of exonerations resulting from DNA technology has raised questions about the accuracy of many forensic sciences and the quality of some laboratory testing. A substantial number of these defendants can point to erroneous forensic science as a contributing cause of their wrongful convictions. In the courts, increasingly, the parties have substantial and serious disagreements about the quality of forensic science. …
Malexandertalet: Ett Tal - Två Situationer, Matilda Arvidsson
Malexandertalet: Ett Tal - Två Situationer, Matilda Arvidsson
Dr Matilda Arvidsson
In this article the court speech delivered by the "Malexander widow", Anneli Ljungberg, is analysed in terms of Lloyd Bitzers "rhetorical situation" and found to work within two different and simultaneous rhetorical situations. Thus, the article shows how a court speech might break with rhetorical conventions of one rhetorical situation because of the conventions governing the other and simultaneously ongoing rhetorical situation.