Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (5)
- Courts (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Abused children (1)
-
- Abused women (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Bruce Kobayashi (1)
- Circumstantial evidence (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Cost-benefit analysis (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal trial (1)
- Daubert (1)
- Direct evidence (1)
- Discovery retrenchment (1)
- Double jeopardy clause (1)
- Dowling v. United States (1)
- Evidence rule (1)
- Expert Testimony (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence (1)
- Florida Statutes (1)
- Forensic (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Frye (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Impartial jury (1)
- Jonah Gelbach (1)
- Judicial Decisionmaking (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert: The Fatal Flaws Of ‘Falsifiability’ And ‘Falsification’, Barbara P. Billauer Esq
Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert: The Fatal Flaws Of ‘Falsifiability’ And ‘Falsification’, Barbara P. Billauer Esq
barbara p billauer esq
Abstract: The Daubert mantra demands that judges, acting as gatekeepers, prevent para, pseudo or ‘bad’ science from infiltrating the courtroom. To do so, the Judges must first determine what “science” is? And then, what ‘good science’ is? It is submitted that Daubert is seriously polluted with the notions of Karl Popper who sets ‘falsifiability’ and ‘falsification’ as the demarcation line for that determination. This inapt philosophy has intractably infected case law, leading to bad decisions immortalized as stare decisis. Among other problems, is the intolerance of Popper’s system for multiple causation, a key component of toxic- torts. Thus, the primary …
Florida's "Brave New World": The Transition From Frye To Daubert Will Transform The Playing-Field For Litigants In Medical Causation Cases, Erica W. Rutner, Lara B. Bach
Florida's "Brave New World": The Transition From Frye To Daubert Will Transform The Playing-Field For Litigants In Medical Causation Cases, Erica W. Rutner, Lara B. Bach
Barry Law Review
No abstract provided.
Response Of John Kulewicz To Professor Shanker, John J. Kulewicz
Response Of John Kulewicz To Professor Shanker, John J. Kulewicz
Akron Law Review
A glaring error in Professor Shanker's recent article proves the value of the parol evidence rule at least as effectively as the balance of his scholarly contribution to this journal. In reviewing the arguments of counsel in the Marion PCA v. Cochran case,' Professor Shanker claims that the Court "was led astray by the lawyers" and that" [m]isleading from the [l]awyers" caused the Court to undertake its analysis of the Statute of Frauds.2 He stakes this claim on his apparent belief that counsel did not ask the Court to apply the parol evidence rule to the facts of the case. …
Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora
Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora
Akron Law Review
Wiggins v. State presented two unique issues: (1) whether it was proper to authorize courtroom security personnel to use prophylactic apparel while escorting a defendant merely suspected of having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and (2) the extent to which this handling procedure impacted the jury.
This Note will analyze the Wiggins decision, emphasizing the court's reasoning as it pertains to the following: (1) the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial for defendants either having or being suspected of having AIDS; (2) the permissible exercise of discretion by the trial judge in authorizing precautions during the course of the …
Evidentiary Use Of Prior Acquittals: When Analysis Exceeds Reality, Paul Harper
Evidentiary Use Of Prior Acquittals: When Analysis Exceeds Reality, Paul Harper
Akron Law Review
The purpose of this note is to assess the basis and propriety of that decision and to highlight some potential problems with the Court's conclusion. Additionally, this casenote will attempt to envision how this holding may affect future prosecutions.
Finally it will offer an alternative model which may more adequately address the tension between the government's legitimate prosecutorial interests and the defendant's interest in finality of judgment.
State V. Jenks Fails To Clarify Appellate Standards Of Evidence Review In Ohio, Kevin L. Leffel
State V. Jenks Fails To Clarify Appellate Standards Of Evidence Review In Ohio, Kevin L. Leffel
Akron Law Review
The analysis that follows focuses on two points. First, many reviewing courts in Ohio have failed to discern between reversing a conviction because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversing because the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. The concepts and associated standards of review are separate and distinct. Jenks failed to clarify the distinction and may actually add to the confusion. Second, the elimination of the circumstantial evidence rule has implications concerning the definition of reasonable doubt in Ohio.
The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill
The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill
Timothy P. O'Neill
No abstract provided.
Science Is Not Waiting For The Courts, Robert Sanger
Science Is Not Waiting For The Courts, Robert Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
The Forensic Science Community and the federal government are moving far beyond the courts in an effort to improve the quality of scientific evidence and expert testimony in the courts. Major events in forensics have caused a top to bottom reconsideration of what should count as expert testimony. Last month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) convened the first set of meetings of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC). This is a forward-looking approach to forensic science.
The first OSAC meetings were held on February 16 and 17, 2015, at …
Ambiguous-Purpose Statements Of Children And Other Victims Of Abuse Under The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein
Ambiguous-Purpose Statements Of Children And Other Victims Of Abuse Under The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The author examines in this paper two kinds of ambiguous-purpose out-of-court statements that are especially problematic under current Confrontation law--problematic in ways that we hope will be solved directly or indirectly by the Supreme Court when it renders its decision in Ohio v. Clark. The statements he examines are:
(1) Statements made by abused children concerning their abuse, for example to police, physicians, teachers, welfare workers, baby sitters, or family members, some of whom may be under a legal duty to report suspected abuse to legal authorities. At least some of these statements will be directly addressed by the …
Proportionality And The Social Benefits Of Discovery: Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind?, Stephen B. Burbank
Proportionality And The Social Benefits Of Discovery: Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind?, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
In this short essay, based on remarks delivered at the 2015 meeting of the AALS Section of Litigation, I use a recent paper by Gelbach and Kobayashi to highlight the risk that, in assessing the proportionality of proposed discovery under the 2015 amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal judges will privilege costs over benefits, and private over public interests. The risk arises from the temptation to focus on (1) the interests of those who are present to the detriment of the interests of those who are absent (“the availability heuristic”), and (2) variables that …
Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr
Systemic Lying, Julia Simon-Kerr
Julia Simon-Kerr
This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that …
The New Doctrinalism: Implications For Evidence Theory, Alex Stein
The New Doctrinalism: Implications For Evidence Theory, Alex Stein
Alex Stein
This Article revisits and refines the organizing principles of evidence law: case specificity, cost minimization, and equal best. These three principles explain and justify all admissibility and sufficiency requirements of the law of evidence. The case-specificity principle requires that factfinders base their decisions on the relative plausibility of the stories describing the parties’ entitlement–accountability relationship. The cost-minimization principle demands that factfinders minimize the cost of errors and the cost of avoiding errors as a total sum. The equal-best principle mandates that factfinders afford every person the maximal feasible protection against risk of error while equalizing that protection across the board. …