Rule of Law Commons^™

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan

Northwestern University Law Review

Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidentiary contexts, such as those involving hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents.

This …

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Conflict Concerning Expert Witness And Legal Conclusions, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Cases On The Law Of Evidence, Horace L. Wilgus

Books

A casebook supporting Evidence course in any Law curriculum. The work is arranged in three sections: Part I: Relevancy; Part II, Proof; and Part III, Production and Effect of Evidence. There is further organization into 113 topical Sections as described in the Table of Contents. The author provides no introductory remarks.